Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev

Impact of land use change on ecosystem services: A review

T
Shaikh Shamim Hasana,∗, Lin Zhenb, Md. Giashuddin Miahc,d, Tofayel Ahamedc,e,
Abdus Samief
a
Dept. of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University (BSMRAU), Gazipur, 1706,
Bangladesh
b
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research (IGSNRR), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Beijing, 100101, China
c
Dept. of Agroforestry and Environment, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University (BSMRAU), Gazipur, 1706, Bangladesh
d
Vice Chancellor, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University (BSMRAU), Gazipur, 1706, Bangladesh
e
Treasurer, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University (BSMRAU), Gazipur, 1706, Bangladesh
f
Institute of Agricultural & Resource Economics, Faculty of Social Science, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Changes in land use and ecosystem services influence each other and such changes have con-
Land use change sequences for human wellbeing. In this paper, we review the research literature on how different
regulating ecosystem services types of ecosystem services are affected by LUC, and the consequences for human well-being. We
supporting ecosystem services begin with a review of the different types of ecosystem services. We examine the influence of LUC
provisioning ecosystem services
on provisioning ecosystem services due to mismatches between agricultural production and
cultural ecosystem services
loss of ecosystem services
hydrological systems. We continue with a review of the impacts of LUC on supporting ecosystem
services through the conversion of an ecosystem to cultivated land, and the resulting changes in
soil properties and the hydrological balance. Next, We also discuss the regulating ecosystem
services which are affected by LUC and alters water purification processes, as well as the effects
on cultural ecosystem services. We conclude with a review of the valuation and quantification of
the effects of LUC on the management of ecosystem services, and propose future research di-
rections. Most of the research reveals a negative impact of LUC on ecosystem services, despite
research gaps related to methods for valuing ecosystem services more accurately and for col-
lecting social responses to the impacts of LUC on different ecosystem services.

1. Introduction

Land use is a major anthropogenic change that has reshaped the earth’s surface, thereby affecting all of the earth’s ecological
functions (Steffen et al., 2007). Thus, understanding the impacts of land use change (“land use science”) is essential for mitigating the
consequences of human–environment interactions.
Land use change (LUC) is one of the key factors that drive changes in human activity and the natural environment, and must
therefore be accurately quantified to understand the impacts of such changes (Mendoza et al., 2011). LUC involves a range of
alterations to the earth’s surface (Arsanjani, 2012; Ellis, 2013). LUC includes land cover changes, since the term includes changes that
do not involve subsequent human use of the land (Ellis, 2013). In terms of sustainable development, LUC strongly affects (and is

∗
Corresponding author. Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural
University (BSMRAU), Gazipur, 1706, Bangladesh.
E-mail addresses: shamim.aer@bsmrau.edu.bd, shinuextn120@yahoo.com (S.S. Hasan), zhenl@igsnrr.ac.cn (L. Zhen),
giash1960@gmail.com (Md. G. Miah), tofayela@gmail.com (T. Ahamed), abdussamie@uaf.edu.pk (A. Samie).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100527
Received 30 April 2019; Received in revised form 8 April 2020; Accepted 12 April 2020
2211-4645/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S.S. Hasan, et al. Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

affected by) global climate change, and the resulting ecosystem responses (Abd El-Kawy et al., 2011; Janssen et al., 2008). Most of the
world’s developing countries are experiencing rapid LUC driven by population growth and the lifestyle changes that result from
income growth (Yu et al., 2013).
The spatial patterns of LUC result of spatial variation in the availability, quality, and suitability of the land, and when insufficient
arable land is available, residents may choose an unsuitable land with low agricultural productivity (Deng et al., 2006). Currently,
both society and the government are concerned with the problems that arise from wasteful land use, including conversion of un-
suitable land to agriculture, thereby decreasing agricultural production and jeopardizing food security. Jonathan et al., (2005)
identified this problem as a burning research issue. In the present paper, we have focused on research that has been undertaken after
2005.
Landscapes vary both spatially and over time (Scholte et al., 2015). In 1995, the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program and
the International Human Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change developed a research plan to determine the impact of
LUC on ecosystem services that would ultimately affect socioeconomic development. This subsequently became a popular research
topic (Deng et al., 2013a; Li et al., 2013; Liu and Deng, 2010; Singh et al., 2014).
Ecosystem services (ESS) are the benefits that humans acquire from ecosystems, either directly or indirectly (Balvanera and
Cotler, 2007; Diaz et al., 2015; Gomez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Silvestri et al., 2013). We benefit from ecosystems in many ways:
through supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services (Li et al., 2010). LUC is intimately associated with ecosystem
services through the changes in the interactions between humans and our environment and can greatly affect services ranging from
biodiversity to climate. Moreover, LUC modifies ecosystems, thereby changing their functions and structure. Tolessa et al., (2017)
concluded that different anthropogenic activities and climate change affected negatively on the ESSs. Meanwhile, scientific in-
vestigation of the effect of LUC on the ESSs is increasing both locally and worldwide (Crespin and Simonetti, 2016; Seppelt et al.,
2013; Andrew et al., 2015; Englund et al., 2017; Ramirez-Gomez et al., 2015: Nunez et al., 2015; Fu et al., 2015; Fu et al., 2017).
Hence, researchers from different parts of the world (Li et al., 2007; de Groot et al., 2010; Haines-Young et al., 2012; Kindu et al.,
2016; Carlson et al., 2014; Gao et al., 2017; Rai et al., 2018) demonstrated that land use change (LUC) greatly reduced the ESSs and
LUC also influenced the relations among the ecosystem services (Lu et al., 2014; Han et al., 2017; Cord et al., 2017; Nelson et al.,
2010; Pereira et al., 2012) although the anthropogenic issues had more responsibility to LUC than environmental factors (Song et al.,
2018). Moreover, many researchers (eg., Costanza et al., 2014; de Marko and Coelho, 2004; de Groot et al., 2012; Bryan, 2013)
revealed that ESS varied across place to place and time due to the impact of LUC.
To understand these impacts, it’s necessary to improve our understanding of LUC both to support current ecosystem management
and to guide future research. To meet this need, we performed a literature review to summarize the current state of knowledge on the
effects of LUC on ecosystem services.

2. Categories of ecosystem services

The Ecosystem services (ESS) concept first came into view in the 1980s (Gomez-Baggethun et al., 2010). Because, decision-makers
are strongly influenced by economic data, ecosystem services usually quantified in economic terms based on their prices in a market
or based on the prices of alternative (substitute) goods and services. Meanwhile, Costanza et al. (1997) was the first to evaluate
ecosystem services based on 17 service functions which were again re-grouped into 5 types afterward (Costanza, 2008). As ESS is a
complex issue, so it integrates varied dimensions, including environmental, social, economic, recreational, landscape, and cultural
(Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Fischer et al., 2009; Balvanera et al., 2012). Due to this complexity of ESS concept helps to develop a
diverse classification and categorization of ESS, although there has been a poor understanding of these categories (Carpenter et al.,
2006; Camacho Valdez and Ruiz Luna, 2012). However, Perevochtchikova et al., (2019) considered the following five services as the
thematic ES: i) capturing carbon (through soil and vegetation) as a part of climate regulation; ii) biodiversity; iii) hydrological (by
regulating, and preserving surface and ground water); iv) landscape services (landscape beauty and recreation); and v) soil (for-
mation of soil). Meanwhile, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) during 2005 put this ecosystem services as an international
agenda and identified four overall types of ecosystem services as functional ecosystem services, that is, supporting services, provi-
sioning services, regulating services, and cultural services (MEA, 2005). In this work, we took MEA classification to focus on.

2.1. Provisioning services

Provisioning services represent tangible products that can be obtained from ecosystems, such as food, fiber, raw materials, water,
genetic resources, minerals, and medicinal resources.

2.2. Supporting services

Supporting services are the underlying ecosystem functions that enable other services to function. These services include primary
production (plant photosynthesis), soil formation, and nutrient supply or nutrient cycling.

2.3. Regulating services

Regulating services represent processes that ensure long-term ecosystem functioning by maintaining ecosystem characteristics
within a stable range. They include ecological process and dynamics, pest and disease control, water and air purification, waste

2
S.S. Hasan, et al. Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

decomposition and detoxification, climate regulation, and carbon sequestration.

2.4. Cultural services

Cultural services represent intangible benefits that enhance recreational, spiritual thought, cognitive (educational) development,
or aesthetic experiences. Examples include cultural aspects such as celebrations of nature and recreational uses such as hiking or eco-
tourism.
Jin et al., (2017) argued that ESS varied with different land use types. For instance, arable lands have weak supporting, cultural
and regulating services, although it can afford good provisioning services of crop production. Moreover, unmanaged forest lands
provide good supporting, cultural and regulating services, but poor provisioning services. Similarly, grassland can supply good
supporting but poor regulating services. Meanwhile, findings from different researchers (like, Geng et al., 2014; Singh and Shi, 2014;
Jin et al., 2015b; Wu et al., 2015) exhibited that LUC affected different ecosystem processes like water cycling, energy exchange, soil
erosion or biogeochemical cycling, that indicated changing the provisioning ESS.
To understand the importance of these services and support sustainable management of ecosystem, it’s necessary to understand
how these services change in response to LUC. This understanding can also guide future research and policy development. To provide
this understanding, we reviewed the literature on each of the four services. From this description, we move to a review of the methods
that have been used to value the services and quantify how these quantities change in response to LUC.

3. Impact of LUC on Provisioning services

The report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) pinpointed that in the last half century, 15 out of 24 ESS have been
deteriorated throughout the world. And human interaction induced LUC is responsible to 60% degradation in the provisioning of ESS
(Jew et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019). Meanwhile, findings from Vaezi et al., (2017) emphasized that degraded ESS could create several
problems like soil erosion, salinization, desertification and so on.
Due to continuous population growth, LUC in the form of urbanization or urban area development (Basse et al., 2014; Keshtkar
and Voigt, 2016; Rimal et al., 2019b) demands more natural resources (Balatsky et al., 2015), production of more food and fiber
(Tilman et al., 2011) throughout the world. Due to these situations, the ecosystem is continuously experiencing conversion, de-
gradation, changing ecosystems (Le Maitre et al., 2007a; Su et al., 2012; Tolessa et al., 2016; Fu et al., 2017) and hence, affecting the
provisioning of ES (Buytaert et al., 2014). Moreover, some researchers (like, Keshtkar et al., 2017; Rijal et al., 2018; Keeler et al.,
2019) claimed that LUC induced urbanization hampers the sustainability of the environment and deteriorating biodiversity and ESSs
(Poppenborg and Koellner, 2013; Tao et al., 2015). Montoya-Tangarife et al., (2017) in Chile monitored the effects of land cover
change in the supply of ESS and observed a slight increase of the provisioning ESS in the Santiago-Valparaiso urban region.
Bennear and Olmstead (2008) exhibited that the total amount of water has been tripled globally during the last 50 years due to
increasing population demand and consumption, more intensive agricultural production (requires more water), more in-
dustrialization, economic growth, etc.

3.1. Impact of land use change on agricultural productivity

Agricultural land is an essential component of a country’s ecological environment because it is one of the most important pro-
visioning services, and must be managed sustainable to both protect the environment and feed humans (Deng et al., 2006; Yan et al.,
2009). Agricultural ecosystems cover about 40% of the land surface (Power, 2010), making agriculture one of the most important
land management systems in the world. However, these ecosystems face severe problems due to human-induced LUC combined with
global warming. Some researchers (like, Chen, 2007; Jaradat and Boody, 2011) found that LUC induced by rapid urbanization
degraded the overall quality and quantity of agricultural land. This has reduced the food provisioning services provided by agri-
cultural ecosystems.
Deng et al., (2006) found that more non-agricultural land was converted to cultivated land leading to increased agricultural
production. Yan et al., (2009) examined the impact of LUC on agricultural productivity in China from 1990 to 2000, and concluded
that cultivated land has increased at a rate comparable to China’s economy and population. However, other researchers have ob-
tained different results. Zhang et al., (2011, 2014) and Liu et al., (2012) found that continuing conversion of ecosystems to cultivated
land reduced the land’s productivity, creating pressure on China’s food security. Yu et al., (2013) found that urban development in
China decreased the area of cultivated land. Meanwhile, Liu et al. (2015) studied on the changes of cultivated land in China from
1990 to 2010 and found that urbanization had decreased the cultivated area. They also found a decrease of farmlands by 10,200 km2
from 2000 to 2010 as a result of urban area expansion. This decreased China’s production potential by 2.97 Mt, which is equivalent to
0.3% of China’s total yield. Jiang et al., (2013) also found that the conversion of cropland to non-agricultural purposes decreased the
total production potential from 1989 to 2005.
Deng et al., (2015a) interpreted the Landsat Thematic Mapper (multispectral scanning radiometer that was carried on board
Landsat 4 and 5) /Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper (introduced with Landsat 7) data to estimate the impact of urbanization on
changes in the area of cultivated land. They concluded that urbanization had only a marginal effect on cultivated land in eastern
China. From 1995 to 2000, the rapid urbanization of eastern China decreased the area of cultivated land by 7%, but that from 2000 to
2008, urbanization increased the cultivation land loss by 29.2%. This is commonly observed as a result of the migration of workers
from impoverished rural areas to cities in search of better socioeconomic conditions (Deng et al., 2008). The loss of agricultural

3
S.S. Hasan, et al. Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

production caused by this migration can be mitigated by development of improved rural infrastructure, agricultural mechanization,
and improved allocation of water resources (Deng and Bai, 2014; Wu et al., 2014a, 2014b). Seppelt et al., (2012) noted that the
mechanisms of agricultural land conversion to other uses on farmer income has not been adequately studied.
The respondents of Spanish dry lands exhibited negative impact of greenhouse horticulture on different aspects of the environ-
ment like pollution, overall ecology and aesthetic value (Quintas-Soriano et al., 2016). The findings were also similar to other
researchers' findings (like, Zalidis et al., 2002; Dale and Polasky, 2007; Munoz et al., 2008; García-Llorente et al., 2012b). Moreover,
García-Llorente et al., (2015) demonstrated that rigorous agricultural practices and utilization of ESSs helped maximize food pro-
duction, thus, could help increasing social-ecological flexibility (Gordon et al., 2010).
LUC has also created conflicts among land uses for the allocation of water resources. Human activities and LUC have also caused
climate change and exerted pressure on the environment that decrease a mix of both provisioning and regulatory ecosystem services,
such as regulation of water flows, carbon sequestration, and food production (Reyers et al., 2009). Moreover, forests and grasslands
face serious pressure from climate change. For example, the water yield of both forests and grasslands have been affected through the
influence of LUC on precipitation and evaporation on the water cycle. LUC from grassland to forest through afforestation and
reforestation have changed the water yield of both forest and grassland ecosystems (Farley et al., 2005). Paudyal et al., (2019) studied
the impact of LUC on the supply of ecosystem services in Nepal’s Phewa watershed. They found that the area of dense forests
increased by 88%, and that the areas of sparse forest, grassland, and cultivated land decreased by 26, 77%, and 15%, respectively.
They also concluded that this LUC improved the provision of ecosystem services. Lawler et al., (2014) revealed that LUC in the form
of huge urbanization in recent past enhanced resource consumption, loss of biodiversity and destruction of habitat. Although, in
different circumstances, LUC decisions helped to preserve ESSs through increased protected areas and conservation strategies (Abram
et al., 2014).

4. Impacts of LUC on Supporting ecosystem services

We divided our review of the literature into the following types of supporting service: conversion of cultivated land, soil prop-
erties and erosion, and hydrological.

4.1. Impact of LUC on conversion of cultivated land

Maitima et al., (2010) found that LUC in East Africa had negative impact on the productivity and livelihood. They also exhibited
that LUC trim downed wildlife habitat and degraded soil physical, chemical, and biological properties, ultimately resulting in poor
soil productivity.
LUC from cultivated land, grassland and forest lands to built-up areas has a direct effect on environmental sustainability (Weng,
2007; Liu et al., 2011; Su et al., 2011; Larson et al., 2016) and illogical land conversion result in fragmentation of land and impact
negatively on ecosystem services (Brauman et al., 2007; Groot et al., 2012). Furthermore, a fragmented land affects more on the
function and services of regional ESS (Alberti, 2005; Estoque and Murayama, 2012; Peng et al., 2016), thus results of changes of ESS
either positively or negatively (Jones et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2013; Mamat et al., 2014; Syrbe and Walz, 2012; Kindu et al., 2016;
Tolessa et al., 2017)
Australia has also experienced LUC in the form of huge losses and high fragmentation of grasslands and natural woodlands since
the 1800s (Ramankutty et al., 2006; Versace et al., 2008). Australian data revealed that 300000 ha of forest was transformed annually
into cropland or grassland between 1990 and 2008, and population increase was the main contributing factor (DCC, 2008). Wintle
et al., (2005) reported that rapid urbanization in Australia had destroyed more than half of the listed threatened species. Results from
other studies revealed that agricultural land use has had negative effects on regional ecosystem services (Dale and Polasky, 2007) and
that it is decreasing soil quality (physical and chemical properties), water quality, and biological properties of agricultural ecosystems
to such a low level that immediate restoration of ecosystem services must be implemented through changes in land management
(Foley et al., 2011). Through their study on the impact of LUC on ecosystem services, Arunyawat and Shrestha (2016) in Thailand
concluded that from the year of 1989 to 2013 rubber plantation and built-up areas were increased due to the decrease of forest cover.
This implied negative impact on ecosystem services and more particularly affect negatively on watershed and agriculture.
Romero-Ruiz et al., (2012) conducted their study of landscape transformation and land cover change (1987 to 2007) in the
savanna region of Llanos Orientals in Colombia and concluded that during the study period, 14% of the study area experienced LUC.
Some flooded savannas were converted into cultivated land or pasture. In Tanzania, rapid population growth caused LUC that
reduced agricultural productivity and caused environmental degradation (Amani, 2005). Tarimo et al., (2013) found 1042 ha of
forests in Tanzania were converted into agricultural land between 1978 and 2006 or further altered into peri-urban uses. Kertesz
et al., (2019) found that the forest area in Hungary increased between 1990 to 2012 due to an ongoing decrease of cultivated land
which decreased the risk of erosion. They nonetheless concluded that in the long term, this LUC would improve ecosystem services.
Yang et al., 2019 conducted their research in the agro-pastoral ecotones of northern China and concluded that huge amount of
grassland areas were converted into cultivated lands and built-up areas within the year between 1980 to 2015 which caused losses of
ESS values of that area. Meanwhile, findings from Verburg et al., (2013) suggested that land use conversion from grasslands to
croplands changed to develop new landscape structures and alter the capability of the landscape to perform ecosystem services.
Changes in the land use structure such as transformation of natural systems to cropland or built-up lands hinder the sustainable
ecosystem development and obstruct the ecosystem service provision (Fagerholm et al., 2016; Turner et al., 2016).

4
S.S. Hasan, et al. Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

4.2. Impact of land use change on soil properties and soil erosion

Although soil plays an important role in ecosystem function, ecosystem services research during the 1990s rarely studied the
relationship between ecosystem services and soil properties (Adhikari and Hartemink, 2016). Majaliwa et al., (2010) found that soil
properties, including the nutrient and water content, crucially influenced agricultural productivity in arid environments. Human-
dominated LUC increased soil degradation, soil erosion, nutrient loss, and organic matter content and at the same time increased
leaching loss of nutrients. These changes, decreased agricultural productivity, water supply, freshwater ecosystem quality, and re-
servoir storage capacity (Sharma et al., 2011). LUC influences soil properties by affecting soil nutrient levels, and when these
properties degrade, this increases soil degradation and soil erosion (Ali, 2006; Covaleda et al., 2011; Gamboa and Galicia, 2011; Liu
et al., 2010; Maquere et al., 2008; Shirvani et al., 2010). Boix-Fayos et al., (2009) and Poeplau and Don (2013) found LUC in the form
of conversion of crop land to grassland and forest resulted increased first and then decreased soil organic carbon storage. In contrast,
Cheng et al., (2013) studied the impact of LUC from agriculture to forest near China’s Danjiangkou Reservoir, and observed that soil
organic carbon in the rooting zone increased considerably in the forest soil. Moreover, the carbon to nitrogen ratio increased in the
forest soil in response to the increased below ground biomass.
Although soil moisture content plays a crucial role in the exchange of energy between the aboveground and belowground
components of ecosystems (Wang et al., 2012). Jiang et al., (2015) concluded that in the arid middle reaches of China’s Heihe River,
soil moisture loss increased during LUC from 1975 to 2010. Li et al., (2015) employed the normalized-difference vegetation index to
assess the impacts of land degradation in the North China Plain. They found that the cultivated lands in the study area changed to
built-up areas (67% of the change in areas), forest (9.1%), and grassland (12.4%) from 2000 to 2008. Furthermore, expansion of the
transportation infrastructure (roads, railways, airports) resulted in overexploitation and degradation of the affected land, and par-
ticularly the soil. Sharma et al., (2011) found a mixture of positive and negative responses of soil properties to LUC. They found that
conversion of other land use types to crop lands was negatively impacted on soil loss, whereas, conversion to forest land increase the
soil properties as this conversion to forest land check the soil loss.

4.3. Impact of LUC on hydrological supporting services

The hydrological ESSs which is obtained from different ESSs, includes, regulating services (like, purification of water and con-
trolling erosion), cultural services (eg., aesthetic approval or spiritual values), provisioning services (including, irrigation and water
supply), supporting services (like, utilizing water for the growth of plants and aquatic living beings) (Brauman et al., 2007).
Hydrological supporting services include natural flows of water and maintenance of these flows to support terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems (Jin et al., 2015b). Different land uses have different effects on hydrological ecosystem services. As a result, LUC can
change the physical and chemical characteristics of the land, which in turn affects the hydrological components of the ecosystem and
the associated hydrological cycle (Jin et al., 2015a). Dimitriou and Zacharias (2010) found that LUC also affected negatively the
water balance of Lake Trichonida in Greece. Hasan et al., (2017) found that the area of surface water in Bangladesh had decreased to
about 35% in between 2000 to 2010 due to the effect of over population growth induced land cover change, which, ultimately,
affected on decreased annual average rainfall and increased temperatures. Bai et al., (2019) assessed the impact of LUC and climate
change on the ecosystem services related to water in Kentucky, USA, and revealed that LUC (conversion of forest land to pasture,
built-up and agricultural land) reduced the provision of water-related ecosystem services. Although, LUC helped to increase soil loss
and the export of nitrogen and phosphorus. Through their study in the Koshi river basin, Nepal, Rimal et al. (2019a) Nepal, pin-
pointed that due to LUC (conversion of cultivated lands to urban land), food production and carbon storage were declined, but the
overall habitat quality was increased during the study period from 1996 to 2016. This was because, in between this time period, there
was an increase of forest area by about 732 km2 and also during this time period there was no significant urban area expansion in the
mountain area of the country.

5. Impact of LUC on Regulating services

Ecosystems provide a diverse range of regulating services, such as, climate and other hazards (landslides, wildfires, etc.) reg-
ulation, purification of air, soil preservation, and detoxification of water. Other regulating services act as intermediate ecosystem
services including pollination that affect crops (Smith et al., 2011).
Human-dominated LUC accelerates the loss of biodiversity (Duraiappah et al., 2005). Although, Vanwambeke et al. (2007)
reported a positive LUC when they observed that lower agricultural potential land were converted into orchard areas on hill slopes in
the northern Thailand. LUC in the form of agricultural intensification and reclamation of land for agriculture leads to habitat loss and
increasing spatial heterogeneity of services in agricultural ecosystems (Gavier-Pizarro et al., 2012). Historically, LUC from natural
land to urban areas, cultivated land, and grassland has increased, accompanied by decreased biodiversity and changes in the
functional processes of ecosystems, leading to decrease provision of ecosystem goods and services (Balvanera et al., 2006; Diaz et al.,
2007). Menzel et al., (2009) in Jordan revealed that the land with natural vegetation decreased by more than 70% due to population
growth and LUC. Their results exhibited a shortage of water in major parts of the Eastern Mediterranean area due to LUC. Song et al.,
(2015) quantified the impacts of LUC on the value of ecosystem services in the rapidly urbanizing North China Plains. They detected
the transformation of 1.26×106 ha of land from 2000 to 2008. They found that the transformation from cultivated land to built-up
areas, decreased the maximum value of ecosystem services by 66.5%.

5
S.S. Hasan, et al. Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

5.1. Impact of LUC on soil properties as a regulating service

Many investigators (eg., Moges et al., 2013; Quan et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2013) previously studied the impact
of LUC on soil properties as well as soil erosion in different arid region. For instance, Yang et al., (2008) and Quan et al., (2011)
illustrated that LUC was the main cause of soil erosion in the Liupan Mountains and the upper reaches of the Shiyang River, China.
While, Moges et al. (2013) While, in Southern Ethiopia also demonstrated that LUC deteriorated the soil quality.
LUC can strongly affect climate through the effects of the land surface on soil moisture, heat transfers, fluxes of trace gases, and
albedo (Bonan, 2008). This can influence the local climate (Hidalgo et al., 2010; Mohamed et al., 2011), regional climate (Fairman
et al., 2011), or even the global climate (Lawrence et al., 2012). Some researchers (e.g., Costa and Pires, 2010; Pires and Costa, 2013;
Sampaio et al., 2007; Stickler et al., 2013) concluded that the removal of trees during LUC accelerates evaporation from the soil,
resulting in a drier and hotter climate. Salazar et al., (2015) concluded that LUC (conversion of original natural vegetation cover to
other LUC) increased the surface temperature and which in turn adversely affected the climate. Liu et al., (2019) studied in China’s
Pearl River Delta and concluded that urbanization greatly affected the forest cover and thereby decreased the regulation of water
covered area, the area’s climate, and degraded the soil surface. These changes also decreased grain production, degraded nutrient
cycling, and ultimately reduced the ecosystem service functions.
Maintenance of sand, silt and clay content of soil against wind and water erosion is influenced by LUC and land management
(Boardman and Evans, 2006; De Vries et al., 2009). Soils can capture and store rainfall. The movement of groundwater and other
water bodies in the soil is influenced by LUC, irrigation, drainage and different types of vegetations (Holman, 2006). Moreover,
Janvier et al., (2007) reported that management in the form of LUC can manipulate soil suppression which can affect soil microbial
activities, and diseases and pests. Meanwhile, Smith and Ashmore, 2013 pinpointed that gas exchange with the atmosphere in the soil
can be influenced by LUC and ecosystem management.

5.1. Impact of LUC on water availability as a regulating service

Water availability, flood control, water conservation, and water purification are included in the regulating services. Wu et al.,
(2014a) found that LUC was one of the crucial driving factors that affected the hydrological system, the structure of the earth’s
surface, and flows of materials and energy. Severe water shortages (i.e., drought) have made sustainable development more difficult.
Increasing land use intensity and the resulting changes in vegetation cover can dramatically alter hydrological processes, including
the circulation of chemical elements, thereby affecting both the characteristics and the functions of regional hydrological systems
(Deng et al., 2013a). Meanwhile, Deng et al. (2015b) Meanwhile, conducted their study in China’s Heihe River Basin during 2000 to
2010 and found that LUC affected negatively the regional water balance and surface energy balance, with high spatial and temporal
variation. Jin et al., (2015a) performed a meta-analysis of the impacts of LUC and found that LUC terribly influenced the regional
hydrological ecosystem and suggested that some of these impacts would affect human well-being. Urban construction greatly ac-
celerates the loss of rural land, and Shi et al., (2014) exhibited that urbanization influenced negatively the supply of hydrological
resources although the demand for hydrological resources were more. Thus, the effects of LUC on the area covered by vegetation and
the type of vegetation can disrupt a previously stable water balance, leading to a new equilibrium. Change of hydrological ecosystem
services due to LUC can have a negative effect on surface water circulation and which ultimately change the exchange capacity of
water between the land surface, soil and plant (Lin and Lin, 2014)

6. Impact of LUC on Cultural ecosystem services

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), cultural ecosystem services are those nonmaterial benefits (like,
spiritual improvement, recreation, or cognitive development) obtain from ecosystems (MEA, 2005; Chan et al., 2011). These cultural
ESS are included in the values of non consumptive direct use and also are difficult to quantify (de Groot et al., 2005). Out of different
cultural ESS, the aesthetic values (Chan and Ruckelshaus, 2010), cultural heritage and educational values (Kumar, 2010) can be
quantified by economic indicators. Different researchers (like, Vanwambeke et al., 2007; Quétier et al., 2010; Tielbörger et al., 2010;
Scholte, 2015, Palomo and Montes, 2011) summarized that industrialized societies value cultural services more than that of other
services. That's why, in the industrialized societies, the demand for cultural services is supposed to increase more in future (Carpenter
et al., 2009; Balvanera et al., 2012, Guo et al., 2010; Ingold and Zimmermann, 2011). By comparison, the cultural ESS is the means of
cultural identity and survival of the traditional communities (Le Maitre et al., 2007b; Voora and Barg, 2008; Brown and Neil, 2011).
Motiejunaite et al. (2019) perceived cultural ecosystem as a controversy issue as these are hard to identify (Propper and Haupts,
2014). Although, cultural ecosystem services are extensively discussed subject (Castro et al., 2011; García-Llorente et al., 2012a,b;
Martín-López et al., 2012). Cultural services represent intangible services such as appreciation of an ecosystem’s beauty and op-
portunities for recreation (Bhattarcharya et al., 2005; Burkhard et al., 2014; Chan et al., 2012a, 2012b; Church et al., 2011; Gee and
Burkhard, 2010; Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013; Milcu et al., 2013; Plieninger et al., 2013; Satterfield et al., 2013; Satz et al., 2013;
Schaich et al., 2010). Nahuelhual et al., (2014) pointed out that land use change strongly affects on the cultural ecosystem services
(eg., recreation and aesthetic value). sHernández-Morcillo et al. (2013) and Rosa et al., (2015) noted that few studies have examined
the provisioning of cultural ecosystem services in terms of the benefits they provide for the communities. Wu et al., (2013) used
geographical information system software to process remote sensing data on LUC from 1978 to 2008 in China, and observed that the
areas of built-up and bare land increased by 169.8 and 83.7%, respectively. Both changes, decreased the regional value of cultural
ecosystem services. They also found that LUC and socioeconomic development decreased the regional value of these services by

6
S.S. Hasan, et al. Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

24.0%.
The previous, present, and future LUC strongly affect the value of cultural ecosystem services (Aretano et al., 2013; Piwowarczyk
et al., 2013; Roca and Villares, 2012). Vihervaara et al., (2012) studied the effects of forest establishment on social and cultural
ecosystem service values in Uruguay, and found that increasing forest cover enhanced the value of cultural ecosystem services, also
including non-cultural services such as provision of water and grazing land to support animal husbandry. Meanwhile, Montoya-
Tangarife et al., (2017) exhibited that LUC induced urbanization in Chile reinforced cultural services and people were interested to go
to environmentally closer ecosystems (ES that are closer to people's living areas) which could ultimately extended new recreation,
aesthetic and cultural values (Ala-Hulkko et al., 2016). Furthermore, many functions provided by agricultural ecosystems (e.g.,
environmental services, aesthetic and tourism services) directly affect agricultural production also (Swinton et al., 2007).
Findings from many scholars (eg., Daniel et al., 2012; Chan et al., 2012c; Schulp et al., 2014) exhibits that cultural ES are related
with other ecosystem services for instance provisioning and regulating services are also recognized as cultural. The uses of fish in
Swedish mountain streams (Blicharska et al., 2017) or utilization of wild plants for food and medicine by the Eastern and Northern
European (Luczaj et al., 2012; Stryamets et al., 2015) is mainly provisioning ES but with the advent of time these are modified as eco-
tourism and recreation cultural ecosystem services.

6.1. Impact of LUC on hydrological cultural ecosystem services

The spiritual, religious, aesthetic values, eco-tourism, recreation values, and/or social, educational and cultural inheritance
functions of an ecosystem also depend to some extent on water-related ecosystem services. Some of these values can be visually
identified, such as heritage and recreation, whereas others, such as policies (Pleasant et al., 2014) do not have available means to
count (Ronnbäck et al., 2007; Barbier et al., 2011). Through a study, Oleson et al., (2015) in Madagascar found a relationship
between cultural heritage values of local fishing communities and ecosystem services. Moreover, proper land use planning, such as
the establishment of parks, might be a good choice for developing cultural ecosystem services. Vemuri and Costanza (2006) and
Engelbrecht (2009) found a positive correlation between hydrological ecosystem services and per person ecosystem service, value
and life satisfaction.

7. Valuation methods and conclusions

Researchers around the world have understood the importance of valuation and quantification of ecosystem services (Hearne
et al., 2010). Ecosystems are well understood to be indispensable for human existence, but due to the lack of markets for most goods
and services obtained from ecosystems, their services are not typically priced. This problem is exacerbated by a lack of information on
the quantity of these services (Newcome et al., 2013). Tianhong et al., (2010) described several studies that have been undertaken in
both developed and developing countries to quantify the impacts of LUC on ecosystem services. Deng et al., (2013b) summarized two
methods of quantifying ecosystem service values using remote-sensing data and geographical information system software. However,
the difficulty of quantifying and operationalizing such analyses has reduced the interest in this research among scientists (Chan et al.,
2012a; Plieninger et al., 2013). Another problem is that there is no commonly accepted framework for this ecosystem assessment
(Chan et al., 2012a).
Because ecosystems cover large areas and generate large amounts of spatially explicit data, it’s necessary to use geographic
information systems to manage the data, particularly when remote-sensing data is used for large areas. Researchers have used this
approach to map and quantify ecosystem service values for many years (Troy and Wilson, 2006; Turner et al., 2007), but several
factors (like, total quantity of ecosystem services and their values to society) have limited the use of this approach estimating the
ecosystem service values (Tallis and Polasky, 2009; Nelson et al., 2009). Nonetheless, Estoque and Murayama (2012) noted the value
of this approach for managing the different ecosystem service values associated with different land use categories. The use of remote
sensing data is particularly attractive, as it can reliably quantify and map LUC and the associated changes in ecosystem services at a
much lower cost than field studies (Deng et al., 2013b).
Scientists have developed various models for estimating ecosystem service values. Models have been developed based on the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment approach (Chopra, 2005), the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST)
model (Tallis and Polasky, 2009), and the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA, 2013). The first approach was the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, in 2000. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment approach (MEA, 2005) can provide an overall picture of
current, previous, and future trends for ecosystem service values (Deng et al., 2013a. In China, Xie et al. (2006) China, used this
framework for valuation of forest, grassland, and agricultural ecosystems. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA), con-
ducted in 2007, represented the first national analysis of the natural environment. It is a cross-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder process
that generates overall scenarios from past, present, and future trends for ecosystem services and values (Fisher et al., 2008).
Nelson et al., (2009) and Polasky et al., (2011) used the InVEST model to evaluate ecosystem service values. This model uses land
use maps and tabular data along with environmental information such as the climate, soils, and topography to predict future eco-
system services. InVEST assesses the values and provision of ecosystem services in alternative land use scenarios. It can also calculate
the impact of land use change on species and habitat quality.
As we have demonstrated in previous sections, LUC critically affects the quantity and value of ecosystem services. Deng et al.
(2013b) notes that there is no method used by all researchers around the world. Thus, it is necessary to develop a framework that will
let researchers study the relationships between LUC and ecosystem services on a consistent basis that will allow comparisons among
studies and integration of data from different studies. Figure 1 provides one possible framework that could be developed in future

7
S.S. Hasan, et al. Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

Figure 1. Framework for the impacts of land use change, including cover change) and climate variations on human well-being through alteration of
ecosystem services (Deng et al., 2013b). Abbreviations: GEOMOD, models based on geographic information systems; MEA, Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment; NEA, National Ecosystem Assessment.

research.
Population growth, economic expansion, and infrastructure development have resulted in the loss of agricultural land through its
conversion to other purposes. These changes potentially reduce food production and decrease food security, while also causing soil
loss including degradation of soil properties, biodiversity loss, and climatic changes. As the literature review in this paper demon-
strates, considerable research has been conducted and significant progress has been made. Most of the researches, we reviewed,
showed that LUC that resulted in a loss of cultivated land would have negative impacts on the provision of the four types of ecosystem
services.

8
S.S. Hasan, et al. Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

However, there is much room for additional research to clarify the impacts of land use change on ecosystem services and their
management. The world is changing and for keeping pace of the growing population and changing the world, men have altered the
land use pattern. From our review, it is clear that since the inception of ESSs concept, research on this issue is proliferated, still there
have some gaps identify the significant achievement of ESSs status and the functioning world. The changes in all four groups of
ecosystem services (supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural) are influenced by many factors. Due to lack of reliable data,
these factors are not always used for valuation and quantification of the ecosystem services. In addition, other factors (eg., social
factors, policy related issues etc.) that have not yet been recognized, so the magnitude of their influence cannot be explained. It
remains necessary to develop policies and techniques that account for our growing knowledge of the impacts of LUC on human
activities and the associated impacts on ecosystem services. We recommend prioritizing research in the some areas. First, it is
necessary to develop common methods for more accurately assessing and valuing ecosystem services. Second, it is necessary to
incorporate ecosystem service values in ecosystem planning to maximize the benefits for human well-being. Third, it’s necessary to
obtain much more data on social responses to LUC. Fourth, there will be another future research issue concerning the impact of LUC
policy and decision making on the ESSs studies.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declares there is no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

Writing this paper was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [No.
XDA20010202], and by the National Key Research and Development Program of China [No.2016YFC0503700]. We are grateful for
the comments from the journal’s reviewers and language editing provided by Geoff Hart.

References

Abd El-Kawy, O.R., Rod, J.K., Ismail, H.A., Suliman, A.S., 2011. Land use and land cover change detection in the western Nile delta of Egypt using remote sensing data.
Applied Geography 31, 483–494.
Abram, N.K., Meijaard, E., Ancrenaz, M., Runting, R.K., Wells, J.A., Gaveau, D., Pellier, A., Mengersen, K., 2014. Spatially explicit perceptions of ecosystem services
and land cover change in forested regions of Borneo. Ecosyst. Serv. 7, 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.11.004.
Adhikari, K., Hartemink, A.E., 2016. Linking soils to ecosystem services — A global review. Geoderma 262, 101–111 2016.
Alberti, M., 2005. The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. Int. Region. Sci. Rev. 28, 168–192.
Ala-Hulkko, T., Kotavaara, O., Alahuhta, J., Helle, P., Hjort, J., 2016. Introducing accessibility analysis in mapping cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators
66, 416–427.
Ali, A.M.S., 2006. Rice to shrimp: land use/land cover changes and soil degradation in Southwestern Bangladesh. Land Use Policy 23, 421–435.
Amani, H.K.R., 2005. Agricultural development and food security in sub-Saharan Africa Tanzania Country report. Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF),
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. http://www.fao.org/tc.TCA/work05/Tanzaniappt.ppt#256.1.
Andrew, M.E., Wulder, M.A., Nelson, T.A., Coops, N.C., 2015. Spatial data, analysis approaches, and information needs for spatial ecosystem service assessments: a
review. GISci. Remote Sens. 52, 344–373.
Aretano, R., Petrosillo, I., Zaccarelli, N., Semeraro, T., Zurlini, G., 2013. People perception of landscape change effects on ecosystem services in small Mediterranean
islands: a combination of subjective and objective assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 112, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.010.
Arsanjani, J.J., 2012. Dynamic land use/cover change simulation: geo simulation and multi agent based modeling. Springer-Verlag., Berlin Heidelberg 2012.
Arunyawat, S., Shrestha, R.P., 2016. Assessing Land Use Change and Its Impact on Ecosystem Services in Northern Thailand. Sustainability 8 (768) 2016. https://
doi:10.3390/su8080768.
Bai, Y., Ochudho, T.O., Yang, J., 2019. Impact of land use and climate change on water-related ecosystem services in Kentucky, USA. Ecological Indicators 102, 51–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.01.079. 2019.
Balvanera, P., et al., 2012. Ecosystem services research in Latin America: The state of the art. Ecosystem Services 2, 56–70.
Balvanera, P., Cotler, H., 2007. Acercamiento al estudio de los servicios ecosistémicos. Gaceta Ecol 84–85, 8–15.
Balvanera, P., Pfisterer, A.B., Buchmann, N., Nakashizuka, J.S.He, Raffaelli, T.D., Schmid, B., 2006. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem
functioning and services. Ecology letters 9 (10), 1146–1156.
Balatsky, A.V., Balatsky, G.I., Borysov, S.S., 2015. Resource demand growth and sustainability due to increased world consumption. Sustainability 7, 3430–3440.
Barbier, E.B., Hacker, S.D., Kennedy, C., et al., 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 81, 169–193.
Basse, R.M., Omrani, H., Charif, O., Gerber, P., Bódis, K., 2014. Land use changes modelling using advanced methods: Cellular automata and artificial neural networks.
The spatial and explicit representation of land cover dynamics at the cross-border region scale. Appl. Geogr. 53, 160–171.
Bennear, L., Olmstead, S., 2008. The impacts of the “right to know”: information disclosure and the violation of drinking water standards. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 56
(2), 117–130.
Bhattarcharya, D.K., Brondizio, E.S., Spierenburg, M., 2005. Cultural Services. In: In: Chopra, K., Leemans, R., Kumar, P. (Eds.), Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.
Policy Responses: FI R., K of the Responses Working Group Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, vol. 3. Island Press, New York, pp. 401–422.
Blicharska, M., Smithers, R.J., Hedblom, M., Hedenås, H., Mikusinski, G., Pedersen, E., Sandström, P., Svensson, J., 2017. Shades of grey challenge practical appli-
cation of the cultural ecosystem services concept. Ecosyst. Serv. 23, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.014.
Boardman, J., Evans, B., 2006. Britain. In: Poesen, J., Boardman, J. (Eds.), Soil Erosion in Europe. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 439–453.
Boix-Fayos, C., de Vente, J., Albaladejo, J., Martínez-Mena, M., 2009. Soil carbon erosion and stock as affected by land use changes at the catchment scale in
Mediterranean ecosystems. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment 133, 75–85.
Bonan, G.B., 2008. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320 (5882), 1444–1449.
Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 63, 616–626.
Brauman, K.A., Daily, G.C., Duarte, T.K., Mooney, H.A., 2007. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 32, 67–98.
Brown, J., Neil, M., 2011. A site-based approach to delivering rangeland ecosystem services. The Rangeland Journal 33, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ11006.
Bryan, B.A., 2013. Incentives, land use, and ecosystem services: synthesizing complex linkages. Environ. Sci. Policy. 27, 124–134.
Buytaert, W., Zulkafli, Z., Grainger, S., Acosta, L., Alemie, T.C., Bastiaensen, J., De Bièvre, B., Bhusal, J., Clark, J., Dewulf, A., Foggin, M., Hannah, D.M., Hergarten, C.,
Isaeva, A., Karpouzoglou, T., Pandeya, B., Paudel, D., Sharma, K., Steenhuis, T., Tilahun, S., Van Hecken, G., Zhumanova, M., 2014. Citizen science in hydrology
and water resources: opportunities for knowledge generation, ecosystem service management, and sustainable development. Front. Earth Sci. 2.
Burkhard, B., Kandziora, M., Hou, Y., Müller, F., 2014. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands – concepts for spatial localization, indication and

9
S.S. Hasan, et al. Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

quantification. Landsc. Online. 34, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434.

Camacho Valdez, V., Ruiz Luna, A., 2012. Marco conceptual y clasificación de los servicios ecosistémicos. Rev. Bio Ciencias. 1 (4), 3–15.
Carlson, B.Z., Renaud, J., Biron, P.E., Choler, P., 2014. Long-term modeling of the forest-grassland ecotone in the French Alps: implications for land management and
conservation. Ecol. Appl. 24, 1213–1225.
Carpenter, S.R., et al., 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 106, 1305–1312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106.
Carpenter, S.R., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Mooney, H.A., Polasky, S., Reid, W.V., Scholes, R.J., 2006. Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science 314,
257–258.
Castro, A.J., Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M., Aguilera, P.A., López, E., Cabello, J., 2011. Social preferences regarding the delivery of ecosystem services in a
semiarid Mediterranean region. J. Arid Environ. 75, 1201–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.05.013.
Chan, K.M.A., Goldstein, J., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., Kikiloi, K., Naidoo, R., Vadeboncoeur, N., Woodside, U., 2011. Cultural services and non-use values. In:
Kareiva, P.M. (Ed.), Natural Capital. Theory & Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp. 206–228.
Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., et al., 2012a. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive
engagement. Bioscience 62 (8), 744–756. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7.
Chan, K.M.A., Ruckelshaus, M., 2010. Characterizing changes in marine ecosystem services. F1000 Biology Reports 2, 54. https://doi.org/10.3410/B2-54.
Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012b. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics 74, 8–18.
Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, A.N.N., Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B.S., Hannahs, N., Levine, J.,
Norton, B., Ruckelshaus, M., Russell, R., Tam, J., Woodside, U., 2012c. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive
engagement. BioScience 62, 744–756. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7.
Chen, J., 2007. Rapid urbanization in China: A real challenge to soil protection and food security. Catena 69 (1), 1–15.
Cheng, X., Yang, Y., Li, M., Dou, X., Zhang, Q., 2013. The impact of agricultural land use changes on soil organic carbon dynamics in the Danjiangkou Reservoir area of
China. Plant and Soil 366, 415–424.
Chopra, K., 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses: Findings of the Responses Working Group. Island Press.
Church, A., Burgess, J., Ravenscroft, N., Bird, W., Blackstock, K., Brady, E., Crang, M., et al., 2011. Cultural services. In: Assessment, U.K.N.E. (Ed.), The UK National
Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, pp. 633–691.
Cord, A.F., Bartkowski, B., Beckmann, M., Dittrich, A., Hermans-Neumann, K., Kaim, A., Lienhoop, N., Locher-Krause, K., Priess, J., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Schwarz, N.,
Seppelt, R., Strauch, M., Václavík, T., Volk, M., 2017. Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: main concepts, methods and the
road ahead. Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 264–272.
Costa, M.H., Pires, G.F., 2010. Effects of Amazon and Central Brazil deforestation scenarios on the duration of the dry season in the arc of deforestation. Int. J. Climatol
30 (13), 1970–1979.
Costanza, R., 2008. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Letter to Editor. Biol. Conserv. 141, 350–352.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., Turner, R.K., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem
services. Glob. Environ. Change 26, 152–158.
Costanza, R., d’Aarge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., Oneill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., Vanden Belt, M.,
1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.
Covaleda, S., Gallardo, J.F., García-Oliva, F., Kirchmann, H., Prat, C., Bravo, M., et al., 2011. Land-use effects on the distribution of soil organic carbon within particle-
size fractions of volcanic soils in the Transmexican Volcanic Belt (Mexico). Soil Use Management 27, 186–194.
Crespin, S.J., Simonetti, J.A., 2016. Loss of ecosystem services and the decapitalization of nature in El Salvador. Ecosystem Services 17, 5–13.
Dale, V.H., Polasky, S., 2007. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecological economics 64 (2), 286–296.
Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M.A., Costanza, R., Elmqvist, T., Flint, C.G., Gobster, P.H., Gret-Regamey, A., Lave, R., Muhar, S.,
Penker, M., Ribe, R.G., Schauppenlehner, T., Sikor, T., Soloviy, I., Spierenburg, M., Taczanowska, K., Tam, J., von der Dunk, A., 2012. Contributions of cultural
services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 8812–8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109.
DCC, 2008. National Inventory Report 2006, Volume 2, Part A—The Australian Government Submission to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change June
2008. Department of Climate Change, Australian Government.
Deng, X., Bai, X., 2014. Sustainable urbanization in western China. Environment 56, 12–24.
Deng, X., Huang, J., Rozelle, S., Zhang, J., Li, Z., 2015a. Impact of urbanization on cultivated land changes in China. Land Use Policy 45, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landusepol.2015.01.007. 2015.
Deng, X., Huang, J., Rozelle, S., Uchida, E., 2006. Cultivated Land Conversion and Potential Agricultural Productivity in China. Land Use Policy 23 (4), 372–384.
http://doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.07.003.
Deng, X., Li, Z., Huang, J., Shi, Q., Li, Y., 2013a. A revisit to the impact of land use changes on the human wellbeing via altering the ecosystem provisioning services.
Advances in Meteorology 65 (11), 183–186.
Deng, X., Liu, J., Lin, Y., Shi, C., 2013b. A Framework for the Land Use Change Dynamics Model Compatible with RCMs. Advances in Meteorology 658941. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2013/658941. 2013.
Deng, X., Shi, Q., Zhang, Q., Shi, C., Yin, F., 2015b. Impacts of land use and land cover changes on surface energy and water balance in the Heihe River Basin of China,
2000–2010. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.01.002. 2015.
Deng, X., Su, H., Zhan, J., 2008. Integration of multiple data sources to simulate the dynamics of land systems. Sensors 8, 620–634.
De Vries, W., Solberg, S., Dobbertin, M.D., Sterba, H., Laubhann, D., van Oijen, M., Evans, C., Gundersen, P., Kros, H., Wamelink, G.W.W., Reinds, G.J., Sutton, M.A.,
2009. The impact of nitrogen deposition on carbon sequestration by terrestrial ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 258, 1814–1823.
Diaz, S., Lavorel, S., Mcintyre, S., Falczuk, V., Casanoves, F., Milchunas, D.G., Skarpe, C., et al., 2007. Plant trait responses to grazing–a global synthesis. Global Change
Biology 13 (2), 313–341.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J.R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., 2015. The IPBES conceptual frame-
work—connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,
management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272.
de Groot, R., Brander, L., Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., Christie, M., Crossman, N., Ghermandi, A., Hein, L., Hussain, S., Kumar, P., McVittie, A., Portela,
R., Rodriguez, L.C., Brink, P., van Beukering, P., 2012. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 50–61.
de Groot, R., Ramakrishnan, P.S., Berg, A.V.D., Kulenthran, T., Muller, S., Pitt, D., Wascher, D., 2005. Chapter 17: cultural and amenity services. In: Hassan, R.,
Scholes, R., Ash, N. (Eds.), Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Current State and Trends, Volume 1. Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group of the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA, pp. 455–476.
de Marko, P.J.R., Coelho, F.M., 2004. Services performed by the ecosystem: forest remnants influence agricultural cultures’ pollination and production. Biodivers.
Conserv. 13, 1245–1255.
Dimitriou, E., Zacharias, I., 2010. Identifying microclimatic, hydrologic and land use impacts on a protected wetland area by using statistical models and GIS
techniques. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 51 (3), 200–205.
Duraiappah, A., Naeem, S., Agardi, T., Ash, N., Cooper, D., Diaz, S., et al., 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Island Press, Washington,
DC, pp. 100.
Engelbrecht, H.J., 2009. Natural capital, subjective well-being, and the new welfare economics of sustainability: some evidence from cross-country regressions. Ecol.
Econ. 69 (2), 380–388.
Ellis, E., 2013. Land use and land cover, change. http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/154143.
Englund, O., Berndes, G., Cederberg, C., 2017. How to analyse ecosystem services in landscapes—a systematic review. Ecol. Indic. 73, 492–504.
Estoque, R.C., Murayama, Y., 2012. Examining the potential impact of land use/cover changes on the ecosystem services of Baguio city, the Philippines: A scenario-
based analysis. Applied Geography 35 (1), 316–326.
Fagerholm, N., Oteros-Rozas, E., Raymond, C.M., Torralba, M., Moreno, G., Plieninger, T., 2016. Assessing linkages between ecosystem services, land-use and well-
being in an agroforestry landscape using public participation GIS. Appl. Geogr. 74, 30–46.

10
S.S. Hasan, et al. Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

Fairman Jr., J.G., Nair, U.S., Christopher, S.A., Mölg, T., 2011. Land use change impacts on regional climate over Kilimanjaro. Journal of Geophysical Research
116 (D3).
Farley, K.A., Jobbágy, E.G., Jackson, R.B., 2005. Effects of afforestation on water yield: a global synthesis with implications for policy. Global Change Biology 11 (10),
1565–1576 2005.
Fisher, B., Turner, K., Zylstra, M., Brouwer, R., Groot, R.D., Farber, S., Ferraro, P., Green, R., Hadley, D., Harlow, J., 2008. Ecosystem services and economic theory:
integration for policy-relevant research. Ecological Applications 18 (8), 2050–2067.
Fischer, B., Tuerner, K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653.
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Mueller, J.S., O’connell, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., 2011. Solutions for a cultivated
planet. Nature 478 (7369), 337–342.
Fu, B., Zhang, L., Xu, Z., Zhao, Y., Wei, Y., Skinner, D., 2015. Ecosystem services in changing land use. J. Soils Sediments 15, 833–843. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11368-015-1082-x.
Fu, Q., Li, B., Hou, Y., Bi, X., Zhang, X., 2017. Effects of land use and climate change on ecosystem services in Central Asia's arid regions: a case study in Altay
Prefecture, China. Sci. Total Environ. 607–608, 633–646.
Gamboa, A.M., Galicia, L., 2011. Differential influence of land use/cover change on topsoil carbon and microbial activity in low-latitude temperate forests. Agriculture,
Ecosystem and Environment 142, 280–290.
Gao, J., Li, F., Gao, H., Zhou, C., Zhang, X., 2017. The impact of land-use change on water-related ecosystem services: a study of the Guishui River Basin, Beijing,
China. J. Cleaner Prod. 163, S148–S155.
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Nunes, P.A.L.D., Castro, A.J., Montes, C., 2012a. A choice experiment study for land use scenarios in semi-arid watershed
environments. J. Arid Environ. 87, 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.07.015.
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., López-Santiago, C.A., Aguilera, P.A., Montes, C., 2012b. The role of multi-functionality in social preferences
toward semi-arid rural landscapes: an ecosystem service approach. Environ. Sci. Policy. 19–20, 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006.
Gavier-Pizarro, G.I., Calamari, N.C., Thompson, J.J., Canavelli, S.B., Solari, L.M., Decarre, J., Goijman, A.P., Suarez, R.P., Bernardos, J.N., Zaccagnini, M.E., 2012.
Expansion and intensification of row crop agriculture in the Pampas and Espinal of Argentina can reduce ecosystem service provision by changing avian density.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 154, 44–55.
Gee, K., Burkhard, B., 2010. Cultural ecosystem services in the context of offshore wind farming: a case study from the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecological
Complexity 7, 349–358.
Geng, X., Wang, X., Yan, H., Zhang, Q., Jin, G., 2014. Land use/land cover change induced impacts on water supply service in the upper reach of Heihe River Basin.
Sustainability 7 (1), 366–383.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics 86, 235–245.
Gomez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P.L., Montes, C., 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets
and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69, 1209–1218.
Gordon, L.J., Finlayson, C.M., Falkenmark, M., 2010. Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services. Agric. Water Manag 97,
512–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.017.
Groot, R.D., Brander, L., Ploeg, S.V.D., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., Christie, M., Crossman, N., Ghermandi, A., Hein, L., Hussain, S., Kumar, P., McVittie, A.,
Portela, R., Rodriguez, L.C., Brink, P.T., Beukering, P.J.H.V., 2012. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv.
1, 50–61.
Guo, Z., Zhang, L., Li, Y., 2010. Increased dependence of humans on ecosystem services and biodiversity. PLoS ONE 5 (10), e13113. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0013113.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., Kienast, F., 2012. Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecol. Indic.
21, 39–53.
Han, Z., Song, W., Deng, X.Z., Xu, X.L., 2017. Trade-offs and synergies in ecosystem service within the three-rivers headwater region. China. Water 9 (8), 558–572.
Hasan, S.S., Deng, X., Li, Z., Chen, D., 2017. Projections of Future Land Use in Bangladesh under the Background of Baseline, Ecological Protection and Economic
Development. Sustainability 9, 505. http://doi:10.3390/su9040505.
Hearne, C.R., Peterson, G.D., Bennett, E., 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 107 (11), 5242–5247.
Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., 2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicator 29, 434–444.
Hidalgo, J., Masson, V., Gimeno, L., 2010. Scaling the daytime urban heat island and urban breeze circulation. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 49 (5),
889–901.
Holman, I.P., 2006. Climate change impacts on groundwater recharge uncertainty, shortcomings, and the way forward? Hydrogeology Journal 14, 637–647.
Ingold, K., Zimmermann, W., 2011. How and why forest managers adapt to socio-economic changes: a case study analysis in Swiss forest enterprises. Forest Policy and
Economics 13, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.06.003.
Janssen, M., Goldstone, R.L., Menczer, F., Ostrom, E., 2008. The effect of rule choice in dynamic interactive spatial commons. Int. J. Commons 2 (2), 288–312.
Janvier, C., Villeneuve, F., Alabouvette, C., Edel-Hermann, V., Mateille, T., Steinberg, C., 2007. Soil health through soil disease suppression: which strategy from
descriptors to indicators? Soil Biology and Biochemistry 39, 1–23.
Jaradat, A.A., Boody, G., 2011. Modeling Agroecosystem Services under Simulated Climate and Land-Use Changes. ISRN Ecology 17 2011.
Jew, E.K.K., Burdekin, O.J., Dougill, A.J., Sallu, S.M., 2019. Rapid land use change threatens provisioning ecosystem services in miombo woodlands. Nat. Resour.
Forum. 43, 56–70.
Jiang, L., Deng, X., Seto, K.C., 2013. The impact of urban expansion on agricultural land use intensity in China. Land Use Policy 35, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2013.04.011. 2013.
Jiang, P., Chen, L., Li, M., Zhao, R., Duan, Y., 2015. Impacts of LUCC on soil properties in the riparian zones of desert oasis with remote sensing data: A case study of
the middle Heihe River basin, China. Science of the Total Environment 506–507, 259–271 2015.
Jin, G., Deng, X., Chu, X., Li, Z., Wang, Y., 2017. Optimization of land-use management for ecosystem service improvement: A review. Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2017.03.003. 2017.
Jin, G., Li, Z., Lin, Q., Shi, C., Liu, B., Yao, L., 2015b. Land use suitability assessment in low-slope hilly regions under the impact of urbanization in Yunnan, China. Adv.
Meteorol 2015.
Jin, G., Wang, P., Zhao, T., Bai, Y., Zhao, C., Chen, D., 2015a. Reviews on land use change induced effects on regional hydrological ecosystem services for integrated
water resources management. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.10.011. 2015.
Jonathan, A., Foley, R.D., Gregory, P., et al., 2005. Global Consequences of Land Use. Science 309, 570–575.
Jones, K.B., Zurlini, G., Kienast, F., Petrosillo, I., Edwards, T., Wade, T.G., Li, B.L., Zaccarelli, N., 2013. Informing landscape planning and design for sustaining
ecosystem services from existing spatial patterns and knowledge. Landsc. Ecol. 28, 1175–1192.
Keeler, B.L., Hamel, P., McPhearson, T., Hamann, M.H., Donahue, M.L., Meza Prado, K.A., Arkema, K.K., Bratman, G.N., Brauman, K.A., Finlay, J.C., Guerry, A.D.,
Hobbie, S.E., Johnson, J.A., MacDonald, G.K., McDonald, R.I., Neverisky, N., Wood, S.A., 2019. Social-ecological and technological factors moderate the value of
urban nature. Nat. Sustainability 2, 29–38.
Kertesz, A., Nagy, L.A., Balazs, B., 2019. Effect of land use change on ecosystem services in Lake Balaton Catchment. Land Use Policy 80, 430–438. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.005. 2019.
Keshtkar, H., Voigt, W., 2016. Potential impacts of climate and landscape fragmentation changes on plant distributions: coupling multi-temporal satellite imagery with
GIS based cellular automata model. Ecol. Inf. 32, 145–155.
Keshtkar, H., Voigt, W., Alizadeh, E., 2017. Land-cover classification and analysis of change using machine-learning classifiers and multi-temporal remote sensing
imagery. Arab. J. Geosci. 10, 1–15.
Kindu, M., Schneider, T., Teketay, D., Knoke, T., 2016. Changes of ecosystem service values in response to land use/land cover dynamics in Munessa–Shashemene
landscape of the Ethiopian highlands. Sci. Total Environ. 547, 137–147.
Kumar, P., 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). United
Nations Environment Programme, Geneva, Switzerland.

11
S.S. Hasan, et al. Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

Larson, K.L., Nelson, K.C., Samples, S.R., Hall, S.J., Bettez, N., Cavender-Bares, J., Groffman, P.M., Grove, M., Heffernan, J.B., Hobbie, S.E., Learned, J., Morse, J.L.,
Neill, C., Ogden, L.A., O’Neil-Dunne, J., Pataki, D.E., Polsky, C., Roy, Chowdhury R., Steele, M., Trammell, T.L.T., 2016. Ecosystem services in managing re-
sidential landscapes: priorities, value dimensions, and cross-regional patterns. Urban Ecosyst 19, 95–113.
Lawler, J.J., Lewis, D.J., Nelson, E., Plantinga, A.J., Polasky, S., Withey, J.C., Helmers, D.P., Martinuzzi, S., Pennington, D., Radeloff, V.C., 2014. Projected land-use
change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. PNAS 111, 7492–7497. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405557111.
Lawrence, P.J., et al., 2012. Simulating the biogeochemical and biogeophysical impacts of transient land cover change and wood harvest in the community climate
system model (CCSM4) from 1850 to 2100. Journal of Climate 25 (9), 3071–3095.
Le Maitre, D., Milton, S., Jarmain, C., Colvin, C., Saayman, I., Vlok, J.H.J., 2007. Linking ecosystem services and water resources: landscape-scale hydrology of the
Little Karoo. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5 (5), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1890/15409295. 2007.
Le Maitre, D.C., O'Farrell, P.J., Reyers, B., 2007. Ecosystems services in South Africa: a research theme that can engage environmental, economic and social scientists in
the development of sustainability science? South African Journal of Science 103, 367–376.
Li, Y., Zhu, X., Sun, X., Wang, F., 2010. Landscape effects of environmental impact on bay-area wetlands under rapid urban expansion and development policy: a case
tudy of Lianyungang, China. Land Sc. Urban Plan 94 (3–4), 218–227.
Li, Z., Deng, X., Wu, F., Hasan, S.S., 2015. Scenario Analysis for Water Resources in Response to Land Use Change in the Middle and Upper Reaches of the Heihe River
Basin. Sustainability 7, 3086–3108. http://doi:10.3390/su7033086.
Li, R.Q., Dong, M., Cui, J.Y., Zhang, L.L., Cui, Q.G., He, W.M., 2007. Quantification of the impact of land-use changes on ecosystem services: a case study in Pingbian
County, China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 128, 503–510.
Li, Z., Deng, X., Huang, J., Zhang, R., Huang, J., 2013. Critical Studies on Integrating Land-Use Induced Effects on Climate Regulation Services into Impact Assessment
for Human Well-Being. Advances in Meteorology 2013.
Lin, D., Lin, Y., 2014. Stakeholders of voluntary forest carbon offset projects in China: an empirical analysis. Adv. Meteorol. 1-7 [Article ID 518698]. http://www.
hindawi.com/journals/amete/2015/518698/.
Liu, J., Deng, X., 2010. Progress of the research methodologies on the temporal and spatial process of LUCC. China Science Bulletin 55, 1354–1362.
Liu, M., Hu, Y., Zhang, W., Zhu, J., Chen, H., Xi, F., 2011. Application of land-use change model in guiding regional planning: a case study in Hun-Taizi River
Watershed, Northeast China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 21, 609–618.
Liu, J., Zhang, Q., Hu, Y., 2012. Regional differences of china’s urban expansion from late 20th to early 21st century based on remote sensing information. China
Geographical Science 22, 1–14.
Liu, L., Xu, X., Liu, J., Chen, X., Ning, J., 2015. Impact of farmland changes on production potential in China during 1990–2010. Journal of Geographical Sciences 25
(1), 19–34. http://doi: 10.1007/s11442-015-1150-6.
Liu, W., Zhan, J., Zhao, F., Yan, H., Zhang, F., 2019. Impacts of urbanization-induced land-use changes on ecosystem services: A case study of the Pearl River Delta
Metropolitan Region, China. Ecological Indicators 98, 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.10.054. 2019.
Liu, W.J., Su, Y.Z., Yang, R., Wang, X.F., Xiao, Y., 2010. Land use effects on soil organic carbon, nitrogen and salinity in saline–alkaline wetland. Sci Cold Arid Reg 2,
263–270.
Lu, N., Fu, B.J., Jin, T.T., Chang, R.Y., 2014. Trade-off analyses of multiple ecosystem services by plantations along a precipitation gradient across Loess Plateau
landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 29 (10), 1697–1708.
Luczaj, L., Pieroni, A., Tardío, J., Pardo-de-Santayana, M., Sõukand, R., Svanberg, I., Kalle, R., 2012. Wild food plant use in 21st century Europe: the disappearance of
old traditions and the search for new cuisines involving wild edibles. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 81, 359–370. https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.031.
Maitima, J.M., Olson, J.M., Mugatha, S.M., Mugisha, S., Mutie, I.T., 2010. Land use change, impacts and options for sustaining productivity and livelihoods in the basin
of lake Victoria. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 12 (3), 189–204.
Majaliwa, J.G.M., Twongyirwe, R., Nyenje, R., Oluka, M., Ongom, B., Sirike, J., et al., 2010. The effect of land cover change on soil properties around Kibale National
Park in South Western Uganda. Applied and Environmental Soil Science 1–7 2010.
Mamat, Z., Yimit, H., Eziz, A., Ablimit, A., 2014. Oasis land-use change and its effects on the eco-environment in Yanqi Basin, Xinjiang, China. Environ. Monit. Assess.
186, 335–348.
Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., García Del Amo, D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., Palacios-
Agundez, I., Willaarts, B., González, J.A., Santos-Martín, F., Onaindia, M., López-Santiago, C., Montes, C., 2012. Uncovering ecosystem services bundles through
social preferences. PLoS One 11e, 38970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970.
Maquere, V., Laclau, J.P., Bernoux, M., Saint-Andre, L., Gonçalves, J.L.M., Cerri, C.C., et al., 2008. Influence of land use (savanna, pasture, Eucalyptus plantations) on
soil carbon and nitrogen stocks in Brazil. European Journal of Soil Science 59, 863–877.
Mendoza, M.E., Granados, E.L., Geneletti, D., Pérez-Salicrup, D.R., Salinas, V., 2011. Analysing land cover and land use change processes at watershed level: a multi
temporal study in the Lake Cuitzeo Watershed, Mexico (1975–2003). Applied Geography 31, 37–50.
Menzel, L., Koch, J., Onigkeit, J., Schaldach, R., 2009. Modelling the effects of land-use and land-cover change on water availability in the Jordan River region.
Advanced Geosciences 21, 73–80. 2009. http://www.adv-geosci.net/21/73/2009/.
Milcu, A.I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., Fischer, J., 2013. Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society 18.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 155 2005.
Mitchell, M.G.E., Bennett, E.M., Gonzalez, A., 2013. Linking landscape connectivity and ecosystem service provision: current knowledge and research gaps. Ecosystems
16, 894–908.
Mohamed, A., et al., 2011. The influence of large dams on surrounding climate and precipitation patterns. Geophysical Research Letters 38 (4), L04405.
Moges, A., Dagnachew, M., Yimer, F., 2013. Land use effects on soil quality indicators: a case studyof Abo-Wonsho Southern Ethiopia. Appl Environ Soil Sci 1–9 2013.
Montoya-Tangarife, C., de la Barrera, F., Salazar, A., Inostroza, L., 2017. Monitoring the effects of land cover change on the supply of ecosystem services in an urban
region: A study of Santiago-Valparaiso, Chile. PLoS ONE 12 (11), e0188117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188117.
Motiejunaite, J., et al., 2019. Cultural ecosystem services provided by the biodiversity of forest soils: A European review. Geoderma 343, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.geoderma.2019.02.025. 2019.
Munoz, P., Antón, A., Nunez, M., Vijay, A., Arino, J., Castells, X., Montero, J., Rieradevall, J., 2008. Comparing the environmental impacts of greenhouse versus open-
field tomato production in the Mediterranean region. In: ISHS Acta Horticulturae (Ed.), International Conference on Sustainable Greenhouse Systems–GREENSYS.
2007. 4–6 October 2008, Naples, Italy.
Nahuelhual, L., Carmona, A., Aguayo, M., Echeverria, C., 2014. Land use change and cosystem services provision: a case study of recreation and ecotourism op-
portunities in southern Chile. Landsc. Ecol. 29, 329–344.
NEA, U., 2013. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., Chan, K.M., Daily, G.C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem
services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 (1), 4–11.
Nelson, E., Sander, H., Hawthorne, P., Conte, M., Ennaanay, D., Wolny, S., Manson, S., Polasky, S., 2010. Projecting global land-use change and its effect on ecosystem
service provision and biodiversity with simple models. PLoS One 5 (12), e14327. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014327.
Newcome, J., Provins, A., Johns, H., Ozdemiroglu, E., Ghazoul, J., Burgess, D., Turner, K., 2013. The Economic, Social and Ecological Value of Ecosystem Services
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2005. https://www.cbd.int/doc/case-studies/inc/cs-inc-uk6-en.pdf, Accessed date: 7 November 2013.
Nunez, D., Nahuelhual, L., Oyarzu, Â.C., 2015. Forests and water: The value of native temperate forests in supplying water for human consumption. Ecological
Economics 58 (3), 606–616.
Oleson, K.L., Barnes, M., Brander, L.M., Oliver, T.A., Van Beek, I., Zafindrasilivonona, B., Van Beukering, P., 2015. Cultural bequest values for ecosystem service flows
among indigenous fishers: a discrete choice experiment validated with mixed methods. Ecological Economics 114, 104–116.
Paudyal, K., Baral, H., Bhandari, S.P., Bhandari, A., Keenan, R.J., 2019. Spatial assessment of the impact of land use and land cover change on supply of ecosystem
services in Phewa watershed, Nepal. Ecosystem Services 36, 100895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100895.
Peng, W.F., Zhou, J.M., Fan, S.Y., 2016. Effects of the land use change on ecosystem service value in Chengdu, Western China from 1978 to 2010. J. Indian Soc. Remote
Sens. 44, 197–206.
Perevochtchikova, M., Mora, G.D.M., Flores, J.A.H., Marín, W., Flores, A.L., Bueno, A.R., Negrete, I.A., 2019. Systematic review of integrated studies on functional and
thematic ecosystem services in Latin America, 1992-2017. Ecosystem Services 36, 100900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100900. 2019.

12
S.S. Hasan, et al. Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

Pereira, H.M., Navarro, L.M., Santos-Martins, I., 2012. Global biodiversity change: the bad, the good, and the unknown. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 25–50. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-042911-093511.
Pires, G.F., Costa, M.H., 2013. Deforestation causes different subregional effects on the Amazon bioclimatic equilibrium. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40 (14), 3618–3623.
Piwowarczyk, J., Kronenberg, J., Dereniowska, M.A., 2013. Marine ecosystem services in urban areas: do the strategic documents of Polish coastal municipalities
reflect their importance? Landscape Urban Planning 109 (1), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.009.
Pleasant, M.M., Gray, S.A., Lepczyk, C., Fernandes, A., Hunter, N., Ford, D., 2014. Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 8, 141–147.
Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., Bieling, C., 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33,
118–129.
Poeplau, C., Don, A., 2013. Sensitivity of soil organic carbon stocks and fractions to different land use changes across Europe. Geoderma 192, 189–201.
Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Pennington, D., Johnson, K.A., 2011. The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case
Study in the State of Minnesota. Environmental & Resource Economics 48 (2), 219–242.
Poppenborg, P., Koellner, T., 2013. Do attitudes toward ecosystem services determine agricultural land use practices? An analysis of farmers’ decision-making in a
South Korean watershed. Land Use Policy 31, 422–429.
Power, A.G., 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical transactions of the royal society B. Biological sciences 365 (1554),
2959–2971.
Propper, M., Haupts, F., 2014. The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation. Ecological Economics 108, 28–35 2014.
Quan, B., Römkens, M.J.M., Li, R., Wang, F., Chen, J., 2011. Effect of land use and land cover change onsoil erosion and the spatio-temporal variation in Liupan
Mountain Region, southern Ningxia, China. Front Environ Sci Eng China 5, 564–572.
Quétier, F., Rivoal, F., Marty, P., Chazal, J., Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., 2010. Social representations of an alpine grassland landscape and socio-political discourses on
rural development. Region. Environ. Change 10, 119–130.
Quintas-Soriano, C., Castro, A.J., Castro, H., García-Llorente, M., 2016. Impacts of land use change on ecosystem services and implications for human well-being. Land
Use Policy 54, 534–548 2016.
Ramankutty, N., Graumlich, L., Achard, F., Alves, D., Chhabra, A., Defries, R.S., Foley, J., et al., 2006. Global land-cover change: recent progress, remaining challenges
(Chapter 2). In: Lambin, E.F., Geist, H. (Eds.), Land-Use and Land-Cover Change. Local Processes and Global Impacts. Springer, pp. 9–39.
Rai, R., Zhang, Y., Paudel, B., Acharya, B., Basnet, L., 2018. Land use and land cover dynamics and assessing the ecosystem service values in the trans-boundary
Gandaki River Basin, Central Himalayas. Sustainability 10, 3052.
Ramirez-Gomez, S., Torres-Vitolas, C., Schreckenberg, K., Honza, M., Cruz-Garcia, G., Willcock, S., et al., 2015. Analysis of ecosystem services provision in the
Colombian Amazon using participatory research and mapping techniques. Ecosystem Services 13, 93–107.
Reyers, B., O'farrell, P.J., Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B.N., Le Maitre, D.C., Vlok, J.H.J., 2009. Ecosystem Services, Land-Cover Change, and Stakeholders: Finding a
Sustainable Foothold for a Semiarid Biodiversity Hotspot. Ecology and Society 14 (1), 2009.
Rijal, S., Rimal, B., Sloan, S., 2018. Flood hazard mapping of a rapidly urbanizing city in the foothills (Birendranagar, Surkhet) of Nepal. Land 7, 60.
Rimal, B., Keshtkar, H., Sharma, R., Stork, N., Rijal, S., Kunwar, R., 2019b. Simulating urban expansion in a rapidly changing landscape in eastern Tarai, Nepal.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 191, 255.
Rimal, R., Kunwar, R., Keshtkar, H., Rijal, S., Rahman, S.A., Baral, H., 2019a. Effects of land use and land cover change on ecosystem services in the Koshi River Basin,
Eastern Nepal. Ecosystem Services 38, 100963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100963. 2019.
Roca, E., Villares, M., 2012. Public perceptions of managed realignment strategies: the case study of the Ebro Delta in the Mediterranean basin. Ocean Coast
Management 60, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.01.002.
Romero-Ruiz, M.H., Flantua, S.G.A., Tansey, K., Berrio, J.C., 2012. Landscape transformations in savannas of northern South America: Land use/cover changes since
1987 in the Llanos Orientales of Colombia. Applied Geography 32, 766–776. 2012. http://doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.08.010.
Ronnbäck, P., Kautsky, N., Pihl, L., et al., 2007. Ecosystem goods and services from Swedish coastal habitats–identification, valuation, and implications of ecosystem
shifts. Ambio 36, 1–11.
Rosa, D.L., Spyra, M., Inostroza, L., 2015. Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services for urban planning: A review. Ecological Indicators 61. http://doi:10.1016/j.
ecolind.2015.04.028.
Salazar, A., Baldi, G., Hirota, M., Syktus, J., McAlpine, C., 2015. Land use and land cover change impacts on the regional climate of non-Amazonian South America: A
review. Global and Planetary Change 128, 103–119 2015.
Sampaio, G., et al., 2007. Regional climate change over eastern Amazonia caused by pasture and soybean cropland expansion. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34 (17), L17709.
Satterfield, T., Gregory, R., Klain, S., Roberts, M., Chan, K.M., 2013. Culture, intangibles and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental
Management 117, 103–114.
Satz, D., Gould, R.K., Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., Halpern, B.S., Levine, J., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Basurto, X., Klain, S., 2013. The
challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio 42, 675–684.
Schaich, H., Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., 2010. Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. GAIA Ecological Perspective for Science and Society 19,
269–277.
Scholte, S.S.K., et al., 2015. Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics 114,
67–78 2015.
Schulp, C.J.E., Thuiller, W., Verburg, P.H., 2014. Wild food in Europe: a synthesis of knowledge and data of terrestrial wild food as an ecosystem service. Ecol. Econ.
105, 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.018.
Seppelt, R., Dormann, C.F., Eppink, F., Lautenbach, S., Schmidt, S., 2013. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: Approaches, shortcomings and the road
ahead.
Seppelt, R., Fath, B., Burkhard, B., Fisher, J., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lautenbach, S., Pert, P., Hotes, S., Spangenberg, J., Verburg, P., 2012. Form follows function?
Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies. Ecological Indicators 21, 145–154.
Sharma, A., Kamlesh, N.T., Bhadoria, P.B.S., 2011. Effect of land use land cover change on soil erosion potential in an agricultural watershed. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 173, 789–801. http://doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1423-6.
Shi, C., Zhan, J., Yuan, Y., Wu, F., Li, Z., 2014. Land use zoning for conservingecosystem services under the impact of climate change: a case study in the middle
reaches of the Heihe river Basin. Advances of Meteorology 1-13 [Article ID 496942]. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2015/496942/.
Silvestri, S., Zaibet, L., Said, M.Y., Kifugo, S.C., 2013. Valuing ecosystem services for conservation and development purposes: a case study from Kenya. Environ. Sci.
Policy 31, 23–33.
Singh, R.B., Grover, A., Zhan, J., 2014. Inter-Seasonal Variations of Surface Temperature in the Urbanized Environment of Delhi Using Landsat Thermal Data. Energies
7, 1811–1828.
Singh, R.B., Shi, C., 2014. Advances in observation and estimation of land use impacts on climate changes: improved data, upgraded models, and case studies. Adv.
Meteorol. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/748169. 2014.
Smith, P., Ashmore, M.R., et al., 2013. The role of ecosystems and their management in regulating climate, and soil, water and air quality. Journal of Applied Ecology
2013 (50), 812–829. http://doi:10.1111/1365-2664.120.
Smith, P., Ashmore, M., Black, H., et al., 2011. Introduction to the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Chapter 14: Regulating Services. In: The UK National Ecosystem
Assessment Technical Report. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
Song, X.P., Hansen, M.C., Stehman, S.V., Potapov, P.V., Tyukavina, A., Vermote, E.F., Townshend, J.R., 2018. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature 560,
639–643.
Steffen, W., Crutzen, P.J., McNeill, J.R., 2007. The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature. AMBIO-A Journal of the Human
Environment 36, 614–621.
Stickler, C.M., et al., 2013. Dependence of hydropower energy generation on forests in the Amazon Basin at local and regional scales. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, USA 110 (23), 9601–9606.
Stryamets, N., Elbakidze, M., Ceuterick, M., Angelstam, P., Axelsson, R., 2015. From economic survival to recreation: contemporary uses of wild food and medicine in
rural Sweden, Ukraine and NW Russia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 11, 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-015-0036-0.
Su, S., Li, D., Yu, X., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Q., Xiao, R., Zhi, J., Wu, J., 2011. Assessing land ecological security in Shanghai (China) based on catastrophe theory. Stoch.

13
S.S. Hasan, et al. Environmental Development 34 (2020) 100527

Environ. Res. Risk. A 25, 737–746.

Su, S., Xiao, R., Jiang, Z., Zhang, Y., 2012. Characterizing landscape pattern and ecosystem service value changes for urbanization impacts at an eco-regional scale.
Appl. Geogr. 34, 295–305.
Swinton, S.M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G.P., Hamilton, S.K., 2007. Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological
economics 64 (2), 245–252.
Syrbe, R.U., Walz, U., 2012. Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic
21, 80–88.
Tallis, H., Polasky, S., 2009. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural resource management. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences 1162 (1), 265–283.
Tao, Y., Li, F., Wang, R., Zhao, D., 2015. Effects of land use and cover change on terrestrial carbon stocks in urbanized areas: a study from Changzhou, China. J. Cleaner
Prod. 103, 651–657.
Tarimo, B., Elifuraha, M., Evaristo, L., 2013. Land Use Change Detection and Impact Assessment on an Agricultural Area. Journal of Sustainable Development 6 (11),
55–70. http://doi:10.5539/jsd.v6n11p55.
Tianhong, L., Wenkai, L., Zhenghan, Q., 2010. Variations in ecosystem service value in response to land use changes in Shenzhen. Ecological economics 69 (7),
1427–1435.
Tielbörger, K., Fleischer, A., Menzel, L., Metz, J., Sternberg, M., 2010. The aesthetics of water and land: a promising concept for managing scarce water resources under
climate change. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. 368, 5323–5337.
Tolessa, T., Senbeta, F., Abebe, T., 2016. Land use/land cover analysis and ecosystem services valuation in the central highlands of Ethiopia. For. Trees Livelihoods 26,
111–123.
Tolessa, T., Senbeta, F., Kidane, M., 2017. The impact of land use/land cover change on ecosystem services in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Ecosystem Services 23,
47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.010. 2017.
Troy, A., Wilson, M.A., 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60 (2),
435–449.
Turner, K.G., Anderson, S., Gonzales-Chang, M., Costanza, R., Courville, S., Dalgaard, T., Dominati, E., Kubiszewski, I., Ogilvy, S., Porfirio, L., 2016. A review of
methods, data, and models toassess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. Ecol. Model. 319, 190–207.
Turner, B.L., Lambin, E.F., Reenberg, A., 2007. The Emergence of Land Change Science for Global Environmental Change and Sustainability. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 104, 20666–20671. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704119104.
Vaezi, A.R., Ahmadi, M., Cerdà, A., 2017. Contribution of raindrop impact to the change of soil physical properties and water erosion under semi-arid rainfalls. Sci.
Total Environ. 583, 382–392.
Vanwambeke, S., Sombon, P., Lambin, E., 2007. Rural transformation and land use change in northern Thailand. Journal of Land Use Science 2 (1), 1–29.
Vemuri, A.W., Costanza, R., 2006. The role of human, social, built, and natural capital in explaining life satisfaction at the country level: toward a National Well-Being
Index (NWI). Ecol. Econ. 58 (1), 119–133.
Versace, V.L., Ierodiaconou, D., Stagnitti, F., Hamilton, A.J., 2008. Appraisal of random and systematic land cover transitions for regional water balance and re-
vegetation strategies. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 123, 328–336.
Vihervaara, P., Kumpula, T., Tanskanen, A., Burkhard, B., 2012. Ecosystem services–A tool for sustainable management of human–environment systems. Case study
Finnish Forest Lapland. Ecological Complexity 7, 410–420 2010.
Verburg, P.H., Erb, K.H., Mertz, O., Espindola, G., 2013. Land system science: between global challenges and local realities. Curr. Opin. Env. Sust. 5, 433–437.
Voora, V., Barg, S., 2008. Pimachiowin Aki World Heritage Project AreaEcosystem Services Valuation Assessment. International Institute for Sustainable Development
(IISD).
Wang, S., Fu, B., Gao, G., Liu, Y., Zhou, J., 2012. Responses of soil moisture in different land cover types to rainfall events in a re-vegetation catchment area of the Loess
Plateau, China. Catena 101, 122–128.
Weng, Y., 2007. Spatiotemporal changes of landscape pattern in response to urbanization. Landsc. Urban Plan 81, 341–353.
Wu, F., Zhan, J., Su, H., Yan, H., Ma, E., 2014a. Scenario-based Impact Assessment of Land Use/Coverand Climate Changes on Watershed Hydrology in Heihe River
Basin of Northwest China. Advance in Meterology. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/410198. 2014.
Wu, F., Zhan, J., Zhang, Q., Sun, Z., Wang, Z., 2014b. Evaluating impacts of industrial transformation on water consumption in the Heihe River Basin of Northwest
China. Sustainability 11, 8283–8296. http://doi:10.3390/su6118283.
Wu, F., Zhan, J., Su, H., Yan, H., Ma, E., 2015. Scenario-based impact assessment of land use/cover and climate changes on watershed hydrology in Heihe River Basin
of northwest China. Adv. Meteorol. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/410198. 2015 Article ID 410198.
Wu, K.Y., Ye, X.Y., Qi, Z.F., Zhang, H., 2013. Impacts of land use/land cover change and socioeconomic development on regional ecosystem services: The case of fast-
growing Hangzhou metropolitan area, China. Cities 31, 276–284 2013.
Xie, D, Yu, X, Chunxia, L, 2006. Study on ecosystem services: progress, limitation and basic paradigm. Acta Phytoecological Sinica 30 (2), 191.
Yan, H., Jiyuan, L., He, Q.H., Bo, T., Mingkui, C., 2009. Assessing the consequence of land use change on agricultural productivity in China. Global and Planetary
Change 67, 13–19. http://doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.12.012.
Yang, G.J., Ding, Y.J., Zhou, L.H., 2008. Impact of land-use changes on intensity of soil erosion in themountainous area in the upper reach of Shiyang River in arid
Northwest China. IGARSS 4, 639–642.
Yang, Y., Wang, K., Liu, D., Zhao, X., Fan, J., 2019. Effects of land-use conversions on the ecosystem services in the agro-pastoral ecotone of northern China. Journal of
Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119360.
Yang, Y.Y., Zheng, H., Kong, L.Q., Huang, B.B., Xu, W.H., Ouyang, Z.Y., 2019. Mapping ecosystem services bundles to detect high- and low-value ecosystem services
areas for land use management. J. Clean. Prod. 225, 11–17.
Yu, R., Deng, X., Yan, Z., Shi, C., 2013. Dynamic evaluation of land productivity in China. Chin. Journal of Population Resources Environment 11 (3), 253–260.
Zalidis, G., Stamatiadis, S.V., Takavakoglou Eskridge, K., Misopolinos, N., 2002. Impacts of agricultural practices on soil and water quality in the Mediterranean region
and proposed assessment methodology. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 88, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00249-3.
Zhang, Q., Ban, Y., Liu, J., Hu, Y., 2011. Simulation and analysis of urban growth scenarios for the Greater Shanghai Area, China. Computer Environment Urban
System 35 (2), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2010.12.002.
Zhang, Q., Wallace, J., Deng, X., Seto, K., 2014. Central versus local states: which matters more in affecting China’s urban growth? Land Use Policy 38, 487–496.
Zhang, Y.Q., Liu, J.B., Jia, X., Qin, S.G., 2013. Soil organic carbon accumulation in arid and semi arid areas after afforestation: a meta-analysis. Pol. J. Environ. Stud.
22, 611–620.

14