Ecological Indicators 145 (2022) 109607

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Original Articles

Spatial-temporal changes in ecosystem services and social-ecological

drivers in a typical coastal tourism city: A case study of Sanya, China
Peijia Wang a, b, Jingwei Wang a, b, Jinhe Zhang a, b, *, Xiaobin Ma a, b, Leying Zhou a, b, Yi Sun a, b
a
School of Geographic and Oceanographic Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, China
b
Huangshan Park Ecosystem Observation and Research Station, Ministry of Education, Huangshan, Anhui 245899, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Tourism is an important economic and social activity with distinct characteristics of human-land interaction,
Ecosystem services which creates increasingly pronounced ecological and environmental challenges. The changes in four ecosystem
Trade-off and synergy services, including water yield (WY), carbon storage (CS), soil retention (SR) and habitat quality (HQ) in the
Coastal tourism
coastal and noncoastal zones of Sanya were analysed, and the influencing factors were discussed. We found that
Sanya city
from 2000 to 2018, the built-up land area of the coastal zone of Sanya quadrupled; CS, SR and HQ of the coastal
zone were lower than those of the non-coastal zone with a clear downwards trend; and WY was higher than that
of the noncoastal zone, indicating that the development of coastal tourism in Sanya damaged the surrounding
ecological environment. The decline in ecosystem services in Sanya from 2010 to 2018 was smaller than that
from 2000 to 2010, indicating that Sanya’s ecological and environmental protection measures have been
effective in recent years. The ecosystem services of Sanya were mainly affected by the natural environment, such
as precipitation(P), and fractional vegetation coverage (FVC), but the impact of tourism factors, such as total
tourism attraction (TA) and accommodation capacity (AC) also gradually became significant. Based on these
findings, we propose to adhere to the sustainable development of coastal ecotourism, implement dynamic
planning and dynamic monitoring, and strengthen the protection of coastal and its buffer zone. This study is of
great significance to the scientific decision-making and comprehensive regulation of tourism-oriented cities and
towns to improve ecosystem services.

1. Introduction has focused on the connotation (Costanza, 2005), classification (Fisher

Ecosystem services, which refer to goods and services that humans
obtain from ecosystems directly or indirectly, bond human well-being to
the natural environment (Costanza et al., 1997). However, nearly 60 %
of ecosystem services, especially regulating services, have been
degraded in the past 50 years due to global changes and increasing
human activities (Costanza et al., 2014). Situational stimulations have
shown that this degradation trend will intensify in the coming decades,
resulting in damage to contemporary human well-being and greatly
decreasing ecosystem services benefits for future generations (Finlayson
et al., 2005). Therefore, it is of great theoretical and practical signifi­
cance to allocate and utilize ecosystem services in a rational way for
human well-being improvement and regional sustainable development.
Since 1997, when Costanza et al. calculated the economic value of
ecosystem services, ecosystem services have gradually become a hot
research issue (Costanza et al., 1997). Research on ecosystem services
et al., 2009), spatiotemporal evolution (Wang et al., 2014), value eval­
uation (Wang et al., 2016) spatial flow (Hao et al., 2019), trade-off/
synergy relationships (Feng et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2018; Wang and
Dai, 2020), supply–demand relationships (Morri et al., 2014), integra­
tion optimization (Keller et al., 2015; Mastrangelo et al., 2014) and
other aspects of ecosystem services. Research gradually developed from
a single scale to a multiscale perspective, mainly extending from the
macro scale (global, national), medium scale (provincial), micro scale
(city, county) to a specific study site scale (village, town, settlement,
community, green land, etc.) (Hindsley and Yoskowitz,2020). The value
equivalent method (Potter et al., 1993), material quality method (Xu
et al., 2019), and energy analysis method (Peters et al., 2019) were the
three common methods used to measure and evaluate ecosystem ser­
vices. At present, InVEST (Sharp et al., 2016), ARIES, SolvES (Sherrouse
and Semmens, 2015) and other evaluation models have been developed
to measure the value of ecosystem services and the relationships among

* Corresponding author at: School of Geographic and Oceanographic Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, China.
E-mail address: zhangjinhe@nju.edu.cn (J. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109607
Received 16 May 2022; Received in revised form 20 October 2022; Accepted 25 October 2022
Available online 31 October 2022
1470-160X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
P. Wang et al.
them. Summarizing the existing research, ecosystem services have
formed a relatively mature research framework, i.e., quantifying the
value of services weighing service relationships formulating optimiza­
tion measures. However, due to the existence of various ecosystems,
scale effects and social ecological relationships exist. Additionally,
ecosystem services under human-land interactions are very complex.
Further exploration is needed to clarify the ecological processes and
interactions among ecological services to understand their driving
mechanisms and evaluation indicators and optimize situational analysis
and integration models.
The influencing factors of ecosystem services can be divided into two
parts: social- ecological factors. And change of land use type. In terms of
social factors, the research showed that urban sprawl, population
growth, industrial and agricultural activities, vegetation restoration
projects and other factors affect ecosystem services (Muhammad et al.,
2022; Memoona et al., 2022; Mirza et al., 2022). In terms of ecological
factors, climate change, vegetation types, soil texture, altitude, slope
and other factors have an impact on ecosystem services. Social ecolog­
ical factors mainly establish an index system mainly using GIS (Qiu
et al., 2018), statistical analysis (Jopke et al., 2015), regression analysis,
correlation analysis, ecological process numerical simulation (Hu et al.,
2015), quantitative remote sensing inversion (Villa et al., 2011), situa­
tional stimulation (Nelson et al., 2009) and many other quantitative
methods to evaluate and predict ecosystems and services. In addition,
land use and land cover change (LUCC) is also one of the most important
driving factors affecting ecosystem services (Lin et al., 2018; Chen et al.,
2019; Wan et al., 2015). LUCC transforms the structure and function of
the ecosystem, which impacts the regional climate, soil, hydrological
resources, biodiversity and other material circulation and ecological
processes (Gao et al., 2017; Song and Deng,2017). Ultimately, the sup­
ply and distribution of all ecosystem services is affected. For instance,
although the expansion of cropland area improves agricultural produc­
tivity and grain yield, it also reduces soil conservation services and
water regulation services. The Project of Returning Farmland to Forest
can improve providing services, regulating services, cultural services
and support services to various degrees (Qi et al.,2019). Research has
showed that changes in the area, type, structure and pattern of LUCC
will lead to corresponding changes in the quality, quantity and type of
ecosystem services (Kindu et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017; Junaid, 2022;
Natarajan et al., 2022). However, few studies have discussed the impacts
on ecosystem services from the perspective of a specific study site or
industry element (e.g., tourism town, resource-based city), which makes
the identification of these driving factors both more complex and more
important for decision-making.
In tourism industry driven cities, there is a close relationship be­
tween the development of tourism urbanization and ecosystem service
functions. Tourism is a kind of human activity reflecting intensive
human-land interactions (Ma et al., 2021), and its cross-regional
development can enlarge the scope of human activities’ impact on
ecosystems (Inostroza et al., 2016). As a somewhat income-oriented
industry, tourism creates economic and social benefits, which repre­
sent positive influences of the tourism industry (Chen, 2020a; Chen,
2020b). Additionally, tourism development will inevitably have a pos­
itive or negative impact on local ecosystem services (Zhu et al., 2019).
The impact of tourism on ecosystem services occurs in two ways. One is
the land use type changes resulting from tourism development (Li
et al.,2020). Due to the needs of the construction of scenic spots and
their supporting facilities, the conflict between tourism land and other
land types, built-up lands are expanded to meet construction re­
quirements for supporting facilities, conquering woodland, cropland,
etc., thereby changing the holistic capacity of ecosystem services. For
example, in order to improve the landscape, the managers of Potataso
National Park in Yunnan Province artificially diverted a river, ignoring
the impact on local ecosystem services (Kram et al., 2012). Another
impact is the direct disruption of tourists’ behaviours on the ecological
process of the local ecosystem (Underwood et al., 2019). In the
2
Ecological Indicators 145 (2022) 109607
Huangshan scenic spot, the individual differences of tourists have
different responses to the zero- letter initiative. Some tourists discard
garbage at will, which has an impact on the ecosystem and footpath
garbage management of Huangshan scenic spot (Hu et al., 2018). It is
noted that different ecosystem services are not independent, and trade-
off and synergy exist between them; that is, the increase or decrease in
one certain service will lead to responses from others. Therefore, tourism
development will make a difference to the holistic ecosystem service as
well as the relationships between various ecosystem services (Deng
et al., 2021). This makes it necessary to correctly understand the impact
of tourism development on ecosystem services.
Coastal tourism is a comprehensive tourism product mainly con­
sisting of on– and off-seasons for vacationers. It is a diversified industry
that takes many forms and provides many options for learning, enter­
tainment and participation. Coastal tourism has already became an
important form of recreation and leisure. China has 18,000 km of
coastline and wonderful coastal scenery in numerous places of interest.
However, the rapid development of coastal tourism has inevitably
damaged the ecological environment, resulting in landscape fragmen­
tation, biodiversity reduction, the urban heat island effect, etc. It is
becoming more urgent to explore the impact of coastal tourism on
ecosystem services. However, previous studies have mainly measured
ecosystem services at the tourism area or protected area scale, and
studies on the spatial–temporal changes of ecosystem services and
influencing factors in tourism destinations at the city scale are very
limited (Chen, 2020a; Chen, 2020b; Oldekop et al., 2016).
Based on the above reasons, taking Sanya city, a typical coastal
tourism city in China, as an example, this paper analysed the changes in
ecosystem services and the social-ecological factors in Sanya from 2000
to 2018. The objectives of our study were to: (1) quantitatively analyse
of key ecosystem services and their trade-offs/synergies in Sanya; (2)
explore the social ecological factors that affect the spatial–temporal
differentiation of ecosystem services; and (3) reveal the linkage between
the spatial–temporal differentiation of ecosystem services and the
development of coastal tourist destinations. This study benefits the
exploration of positive interactions between ecosystem services and
social-economic development under tourism-driven new urbanization.
Additionally, it provided evidence and research support for the sus­
tainable management of coastal tourism cities and the sustainable
development of ecotourism.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
Sanya (18◦ 09′ 34 “~ 18◦ 37′ 27′′ N, 108◦ 56′ 30 ”~ 109◦ 48′ 28′′ E),
located in the southern tip of Hainan Island, has a total land area of 1921
square kilometres, a sea area of 3226 square kilometres, a coastline of
263.29 km, 19 harbours and 68 main islands. The annual average
temperature is 25.7 ◦ C, and the annual average precipitation is 1347.5
mm (Wang et al., 2015). it belongs to a tropical monsoon climate. It is
known as “the most liveable city in the world”.
The only tropical coastal tourism city in China, Sanya has a superior
geographical location, rich natural resources, and an excellent ecolog­
ical environment. With strong national policy support, Sanya has
become representative of coastal tourism cities in China. In 2020, the
total revenue of tourism in Sanya was 42.474 billion yuan, accounting
for 61.08 % of the city’s GDP, indicating that the dominance of the
tourism industry within the industrial structure has strengthened.
Sanya consists of land and sea. The study area for this research is the
total land area of Sanya; the area of the sea is not included. The land area
of Sanya is divided into a coastal region and a noncoastal region. We
define coastal regions as areas 5 km from the coastline, while noncoastal
regions are defined as areas over 5 km (Chen, 2020a; Chen, 2020b;
Keller et al., 2015). Therefore, we can more directly compare the
tourism-driven land use changes in coastal regions and noncoastal
P. Wang et al. Ecological Indicators 145 (2022) 109607

regions and then clarify the spatiotemporal distribution differences in water yield is, the greater the water supply. The specific calculation
ecosystem services in the two regions and the reasons (Fig. 1). formula is as follows:
AET (x)
2.2. Data sources Y(x) = (1 − ) × P(x) (1)
P(x)

The land use data of Sanya city for 2000, 2010, and 2018 used in this
study were obtained from the Resource and Environment Science and
Data Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (https://www.resdc.
cn/) and have a spatial resolution of 30 m. The meteorological data
were obtained from the daily dataset of Chinese terrestrial climate in­
formation from the China Meteorological Data Network (https://data.
cma.cn/). Soil data were obtained from the Harmonized World Soil
Database (HWSD) and the Chinese Soil Dataset (1:1 million). ASTER
GDEM was used for the DEM data, which were derived from the Geo­
spatial Data Cloud (https://www.gscloud.cn/) and have a spatial reso­
lution of 30 m. Other social statistics, such as population and economy,
were obtained from the Sanya City Statistical Yearbook from 2000 to
2019.
2.3. Methods
where Y(X) is the annual water yield of a land use type (mm), AET(X) is
the annual actual evapotranspiration for pixel × (mm), and P(X) is the
annual precipitation for pixel × (mm). The relationship between AET
and P is based on the expression of the Budyko curve (Budyko, 1974),
AET (X)
is the ratio of actual evapotranspiration to precipitation. There is
P(X)
an empirical value Z in the water yield model, which is determined by
the local precipitation pattern and additional hydrogeology. In this
study, we set the Z value to 4.2 (Ma et al.,2021).
0.2.3.3 Model of soil retention (SR).
The soil retention (SR) module in the InVEST model evaluates po­
tential soil loss based on topographic features and climatic conditions
and assesses soil conservation capacity based on the Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE) (Hamel et al., 2015). The stronger the soil erosion is,
the higher the sediment output and the lower the soil retention service.
The formulae used are as follows:

2.3.1. Ecosystem services selection RKLS = R × K × LS (2)

This paper followed the following three criteria to screen ecosystem
service indicators: (1) Referring to the generally accepted Millennium USLE = R × K × LS × P × C (3)
Ecosystem Assessment Classification Framework (Millennium
SR = RKLS − USLE (4)
Ecosystem Assessment,2005) and the general international classification
of ecosystem services (CIECS), ecosystem services are divided into three
where RKLS indicates the amount of potential soil loss for bare soil;
categories: provisioning, regulating and cultural services (Haines-Young
USLE is actual soil erosion; SR indicates soil retention; R is the rainfall
and Potschin-Young, 2018). (2) Concerns of stakeholders. The indicators
erosivity factor, which is calculated based on the monthly scale calcu­
selected in this paper were closely related to human well-being and were
lation model of Wischmeier and Smith (1978); K is the soil erodibility
the focus of attention of relevant stakeholders such as government de­
factor, which is obtained according to EPIC model of soil texture and
partments, relevant enterprises, local residents and tourists. (3) Avail­
organic matter content (Williams and Arnold, 1997); LS is a slope
ability and spatial expression of data. Based on this, the study selected
length-gradient factor, C is the vegetation cover management factor, and
four services as key ecosystem services: water yield services (WY), soil
P is a support practice factor, the settings of C and P referring to previous
retention services(SR), carbon storage services(CS)and habitat quality
studies and combining the land use and agricultural production activ­
services(HQ).
ities in the study area (Gou et al., 2021;Ma et al., 2021).

2.3.2. Model of water yield (WY)

2.3.3. Model of carbon storage (CS)
The water yield (WY) module in the InVEST model is based on the
CS is the sequestration services is the basis for ecosystem services and
water balance principle, where the water yield of a pixel is the difference
occur through exchanges within surrounding ecosystems that permit the
between rainfall and actual evapotranspiration while considering
storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide. CS is the sequestration services
topography, climate, soil and vegetation type to quantitatively assess the
are one of the core indicators of ecosystem services (Lal, 2004). The
water yield capacity of each pixel (Kusi et al., 2020). The higher the

Fig. 1. Location of the study area.

3
P. Wang et al.
carbon storage model in InVEST used data from different land use types
and their corresponding carbon density data from the five major carbon
pools to calculate CS for different time periods and different land types.
Using this model, according to the raster of land use in Sanya, the total
carbon amount of each CS is calculated raster unit and the average
carbon density of each land use type were determined. Carbon seques­
tration was calculated using the formula:
Cz = Cabove + Cbelow + Cdead + Csoil
where Cz is the total CS, Cabove is the carbon stored in aboveground
biomass, Cbelow is the carbon stored in belowground biomass, Cdead is the
carbon stored in dead matter, and Csoil is the carbon stored in the soil.
Each carbon storage is obtained by multiplying the carbon density by the
area.
2.3.4. Model of habitat quality (HQ)
Habitat quality (HQ) refers to the ability of an ecosystem to provide
conditions for the survival of individual organisms and populations.
Habitat quality (HQ) is expressed in terms of the availability of subsis­
tence resources, the number of organisms breeding and surviving, etc
(Orsi et al., 2020). The rationale for the habitat quality module of the
InVEST model is to evaluate biodiversity maintenance functions based
on land cover conditions and biodiversity stressors. The specific calcu­
lation formula is as follows:
[ ( )]
Dzxj
Qxj = Hj 1 − (6)
Dzxj + kz
In Formula (6), Qxj is the habitat quality index of pixel × in land use
type j; Hj refers to the habitat suitability of land use type j; Dzxj is the
habitat degradation degree of pixel × in land use type j; k is a semi
saturation constant, generally set to half the degree of habitat degra­
dation; and z is a normalized constant.
2.3.5. Model of mutual relationship analysis of ecosystem services
The pixels of the four ecosystem services in the study area were
extracted, and the correlation coefficient between the two ecosystem
services was calculated. When the correlation coefficient of two
ecosystem services was negative and passed the significance test, a
trade-off relationship occurred; conversely, when the correlation coef­
ficient was positive and passed the significance test, a synergistic rela­
tionship occurred (Deng et al., 2021). Based on MATLAB software, the
four services were analysed for correlation on a pixel-by-pixel basis to
quantify their degree of trade-off or synergy and visualize their rela­
tionship. The specific calculation formula is as follows:
∑n √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
ES1ij) (ES2N(ij)
R=√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (7).where ES1 and ES2
n=1
(ES1n(ij) −
∑ n √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ∑ 2 n 2
(ES1n(ij) − ES1(ij) ) (ES2nij − ES2(ij) )
n=1 n=1
are two ecosystem services; R is the correlation coefficient between the
two services; i and j are the row and column numbers of pixels in the
raster data; and n is the time series of the raster data.
2.3.6. Model of geographical detector
A geographic detector is a statistical method for quantitatively
detecting the spatial heterogeneity of geographic phenomena and
revealing the driving forces behind them. It consists of a factor detector,
interaction detector, risk detector and ecological detector (Wang et al.,
2010). Factor detection and interaction detection are mainly selected in
this study, which can measure the magnitude of the contribution of
factors affecting ecosystem services and their interactions, using q sta­
tistic values. For q∈［0,1］, a higher value of q indicates a higher degree
of influence of Factor A on the trade-off or synergy of ecosystem services
in the study area. The specific calculation formula is as follows:
SSW
∑k 2 2000 to 74.51 in 2018, CS decreased by 591.88 t/km2 from 15,830.87 t/
h=1 Nh δh
q = 1− = 1− 2
(8)
SST Nδ
Ecological Indicators 145 (2022) 109607
where h and L are the stratification (classification or partitioning) of the
variable Y or Factor X; Nh and N are the number of units in the strati­
fication h and the whole area, respectively; δ2h and δ2 are the variance of
the Y values of the h stratification and the whole region, respectively;
SSW is the sum of the in-stratification variance; and SST is the region
total variance.
(5) 2.3.7. Model of kernel density
Kernel density estimation (KDE) was used to calculate the density of
elements in their surrounding fields. The calculation formula is:
(x − x )
n ∑ n
(9)
i
f(x) = K
nh i=1 h
( )
K x−hxi is a kernel function; H is the search bandwidth; (x − xi ) in­
dicates the distance from the estimated point x to the event xi .
3. Results
3.1. Land use change
During the study period, woodland, cropland and built-up land were
the three main land use types for the whole zone in Sanya, accounting
for 75.75 %, 15.16 %, and 2.12 % in 2000 and 73.27 %, 12.88 %, and
6.55 % in 2019, respectively (Fig. 2). The area of built-up land greatly
increased to 124.83 km2 by 2019, almost three times that in 2000
(40.31 km2). This chiefly resulted from the conversion of 33.46 % of
cropland and 31.03 % of woodland. In contrast, the areas of woodland
and cropland decreased from 1443.23 km2 and 288.82 km2 in 2000 to
1395.82 km2 and 245.46 km2 in 2019. In addition to their mutual
conversion, the conversions to built-up land and water dominated most
of the changes, especially to built-up land. In addition, the areas of
unused land and mudflats decreased to various degrees (Fig. 3).
These results showed a similar trend in coastal zone. Woodland,
cropland and built-up land played an important role, with proportions of
53.92 %, 28.88 %, and 6.00 % in 2000 and 49.66 %, 23.58 %, and 16.07
% in 2019, respectively. The woodland area decreased from 322.87 km2
in 2000 to 297.36 km2 in 2019, with a 26.31 km2 loss converting to
built-up land (8.15 %). The area of cropland decreased from 172.89 km2
to 141.19 km2; this change was mainly due to the conversion to built-up
land (17.84 %). There was also a slight decrease in grassland, mudflat
and unused land areas. Built-up land increased from 35.90 km2 in 2000
to 96.19 km2 in 2019, with a large proportion of the increased area from
cropland and woodland (32.07 % and 27.35 %, respectively). The water
area increased as well but changed slightly.
In the noncoastal zone, the two main land use types were woodland
and cropland, which represented 85.76 % and 8.87 % of overall area in
2000 and 84.08 % and 7.98 % of overall area in 2019, respectively,
while the proportion of built-up land was smaller than that in other
regions. The woodland area decreased slightly from 1120.37 km2 in
2000 to 1098.46 km2 in 2019, with a primary conversion to built-up
land (1.10 %) and water (1.04 %). The cropland area decreased from
115.93 km2 in 2000 to 104.27 km2 in 2019, mainly because of the
conversion to built-up land (9.41 %). For the built-up land, the area still
increased rapidly, from 4.41 km2 in 2000 to 28.64 km2 in 2019,
resulting from cropland and woodland conversions.
3.2. Ecosystem services change
The average WY of Sanya was 911.83 mm in 2000, 1077.23 mm in
2010 and 1039.82 mm in 2018, with an increase of 165.4 mm from 2000
to 2010, a decrease of 127.99 mm from 2010 to 2018 and an increase of
127.99 mm from 2000 to 2018. SR decreased by 5.96 from 80.47 in
km2 in 2000 to 15,238.99 t/km2 in 2018, and HQ decreased by 0.05
from 0.86 in 2000 to 0.81 in 2018 (Fig. 4).
4
P. Wang et al.
Fig. 2. Land use type in Sanya from 2000 to 2018.
Fig.3. Land use change in Sanya from 2000 to 2018.
The average WY of the coastal zone was 1095.33 mm in 2000,
1275.01 mm in 2010 and 1272.09 mm in 2018, with an increase of
179.68 mm from 2000 to 2010, a decrease of 2.92 mm from 2000 to
2018 and an increase of 176.76 mm from 2000 to 2018. SR decreased by
1.47 from 39.06 in 2000 to 37.59 in 2018, CS decreased by 661.89/km2
from 12629.57 t/km2 in 2000 to 11967.68 t/km2, and HQ decreased by
0.09 from 0.73 in 2000 to 0.64 in 2018.
The average WY of the noncoastal zone was 826.51 mm in 2000,
985.61 mm in 2010 and 932.40 mm in 2018, with an increase of 159.1
mm from 2000 to 2010, a decrease of 53.21 mm from 2010 to 2018 and
an increase of 105.89 mm from 2000 to 2018. SR decreased by 8.03 from
99.41 in 2000 to 91.38 in 2018, CS decreased by 312.12 t/km2 from
17,286.76 t/km2 in 2000 to 16,974.64 t/km2 in 2018, and HQ decreased
by 0.03 from 0.92 in 2000 to 0.89 in 2018.
SR, HQ and CS continued to decline from 2000 to 2018, while WY
increased from 2000 to 2010 and then decreased from 2010 to 2018 in
the Sanya’s coastal and noncoastal zones(Fig. 5). It is worth noting that
SR, HQ and CS showed downwards trends from 2010 to 2018 in Sanya,
which were slightly lower than those from 2000 to 2010. From the
perspective of spatial distribution, the average SR, HQ and CS in the
coastal zone were significantly lower than those in the noncoastal zone,
while the WY in the coastal zone was higher than that in the noncoastal
zone. The high-value area of SR was located in the northern and central
hilly areas of Sanya, and its capacity was greater than 4200 t/900 m. The
low-value area of SR was located in the southern coastal area, with a
minimum value of 0. WY gradually decreased from north to south. The
high value area was distributed in the coastal area, which was greater
than 1800 mm. The high-value area of CS distribution was mainly
concentrated in the northern high mountains, ranging from 13,000 to
18,837 t/km2, and the lowest values were mainly distributed in the
5
Ecological Indicators 145 (2022) 109607
coastal areas. The CS was less than 500 t/km2, and the difference was
large. The HQ of the coastal zone was far lower than that of the non­
coastal zone, with a difference of 0.16 in 2000, 0.22 in 2010 and 0.25 in
2018.
3.3. Trade-off and synergy between ecosystem services
Based on pixel analysis, the correlation between four ecosystem
services in Sanya from 2000 to 2018 was calculated. WY and SR show
synergistic trends in the south and trade-off in the north as a whole, but
the whole was still dominated by high synergy, accounting for 49.7 %
(Fig. 6). The trade-off dominated between WY and HQ, accounting for
70.1 %, but the negative trade-off accounted for a relatively high pro­
portion, indicating that the trade-off degree of these two ecosystem
services was at a low level. The proportions of positive synergy and
positive trade-off between HQ and SR were 51.3 % and 46.2 %,
respectively, which were equivalent. There were negative trade-off re­
lationships between CS and WY, CS and SR, and CS and HQ, accounting
for 95.3 %, 98.7 % and 91.2 %, respectively. In the noncoastal zone, the
trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services were roughly the
same as those in Sanya. In the coastal zone, the situation is different. WY
and SR had a high synergistic relationship with each other, as did WY
and HQ, accounting for 43.5 %. The positive trade-off relationship be­
tween HQ and SR accounted for 67.3 %. There were negative trade-off
relationships between CS and WY, CS and SR, and CS and HQ, ac­
counting for 71.3 %, 80.6 %, and 63.4 %, respectively.
3.4. Potential factors affecting ecosystem services
We selected natural environmental factors, socioeconomic factors
P. Wang et al.
Fig.4. The spatial and temporal distribution of ecosystem services in Sanya from 2000 to 2018. WY: water yield. SR: soil retention. CS: carbon storage. HQ:
habitat quality.
and tourism development factors to explore the impact on ecosystem
services. The natural environmental factors include Digital Elevation
Model (DEM), precipitation(P), temperature(T), fractional vegetation
coverage (FVC); the socioeconomic factors include gross national
product (GDP), population density (POP), urbanization rate (UR), and
the tourism development factors include tourist attraction (TA),
Accommodation capacity (AC), and Density of commercial housing
(DCH). Among them, DEM、P、T and FVC were clustered using the
natural break method; socioeconomic factors such as GDP、POP、UR、
TA、AC、DCH were acquired from the local municipalities and basi­
cally reflect the level of socioeconomic development in Sanya.
The single-factor geographic detection revealed that the four
ecosystem services of WY, SR, CS and HQ in Sanya in 2000 were most
6
Ecological Indicators 145 (2022) 109607
significantly explained by natural environmental factors, while socio­
economic and tourism development factors had weaker explanatory
power. However, in 2018, natural environmental factors still domi­
nated, but the explanatory power gradually weakened, and the
explanatory power of tourism development factors continued to increase
(Fig. 7). The WY of Sanya city was mainly affected by P and T, because P
affected water vapour input and surface runoff, and T affected evapo­
ration and plant growth, both of which affect water production services
(Xu et al., 2019; Bai et al.,2019; Wang et al., 2019). SR was mainly
affected by FVC and P. with the increase of slope, the SR also showed an
increasing trend. P mainly affected SR function by affecting rainfall
erosivity (Kindu et al., 2016; Feng et al.,2017; Lin et al., 2018). CS is
mainly affected by factors such as FVC and P. the change of FVC showed
P. Wang et al.
Fig.5. Changes in ecosystem services in Sanya from 2000 to 2018.
that the fractional vegetation coverage is good, which is beneficial to the
increase of CS. P improved CS capacity by increasing plant productivity
and production (Bai et al.,2019; Wang et al., 2019). The HQ of Sanya
was mainly affected by FVC, DEM and TA, indicating that although t HQ
was still significantly affected by FVC, DEM and other natural environ­
mental factors, HQ was threatened by TA and other tourism factors
(Wang and Dai, 2020). However, with the acceleration of tourism ur­
banization in Sanya, the intensity of man activities increases, and the
patches of forestland, grassland and water areas continue to decrease.
The more patches of irregular built-up land, the more concentrated the
spatial distribution, resulting in more fragmentation of natural habitat
patches, decreased connectivity, and reduced ecosystem services. This is
consistent with the research of Deng et al., that is, in the early stage of
urbanization, ecosystem services are affected by natural environmental
factors. With the development of the social economy, ecosystem services
are increasingly affected by social economy.
Due to the limited space, this study focused on the interactions be­
tween each of the 10 factors based on the 2018 data of Sanya with the
help of the interaction detector module of the geographic detector. We
found that the interactive drivers with the greatest explanatory power
for WY, SR, CS, and HQ in Sanya in 2018 were P ∩ T(q = 0.64), P ∩ DEM
(q = 0.69), FVC ∩ P (q = 0.74), and FVC ∩ DEM (q = 0.54), respectively
(Fig. 8). This showed that ecosystem services in Sanya are most signif­
icantly affected by interactions Between natural environmental factors.
In addition, the two-factor interaction of each factor was two-factor
enhanced, indicating that the driving factors of ecosystem services in
Sanya are not acting alone but together with other factors, reflecting the
complexity of the influence mechanism of the spatial differentiation of
ecosystem services in Sanya.
3.5. Impact of tourism development on ecosystem services
We obtained the core density analysis of 432 recreation areas, 4102
7
Ecological Indicators 145 (2022) 109607
catering service areas, 3353 accommodation facilities, and 2763 resi­
dential housing in Sanya through Baidu Map big data (Fig. 9). We found
that the high-value areas of the core density of the four tourism elements
were concentrated in the coastal zone, which were negatively correlated
with SR, CS and HQ and positively correlated with WY. SR, CS and HQ in
the coastal zone were lower than those in the noncoastal zone, which is
consistent with the actual situation. The rapid expansion of tourism was
the dominant factor. The tourism demand in the coastal zone was
stronger than that in the noncoastal zone. When large numbers of
tourists flowed into the coastal zone, built-up land encroached on
cropland and woodland to increase its area to meet the growing demand
of tourists (Adrienne et al., 2008). In addition, with the development of
tourism, the industrial structure and residents’ employment income
structure have also changed. For higher incomes, government businesses
and local residents may prefer to use land for tourism rather than agri­
culture or other purposes, leading to a more pronounced decline in
ecosystem services. The ecological environment of the noncoastal zone
was better than that of the coastal zone due to less interference from
human activities.
4. Discussion
4.1. Trade-off between tourism development and ecological protection in
Sanya
Since the central government established Hainan International
Tourism Island in 2010, Sanya has paid attention to ecotourism devel­
opment. In 2000, Sanya’s tourism revenue was 1.982 billion yuan. In
2018, tourism revenue increased to 50.842 billion yuan, representing a
25-fold increase. In 2018, the forest coverage rate of Sanya reached 69
%, an increase of 4 % compared with 2000. We also found that from
2010 to 2018, although the ecosystem services in Sanya showed a
downwards trend, the decline was slightly lower than that from 2000 to
P. Wang et al.
Fig. 6. Trade-off and synergy of ecosystem services in Sanya from 2000 to 2018.
2010. This showed that the tourism-led development and construction
of Sanya has reduced the ecosystem services in the region. For example,
in Sanya Bay, Yalong Bay, and Dadonghai in Sanya, the ecological
environment has been damaged, and the problems of water pollution,
air pollution and solid waste pollution left by tourists are very promi­
nent. However, there were still ecological environmental protection
measures that serve as a buffer to reduce the damage and disturbance to
the ecological environment of Sanya city. The Sanya Municipal Gov­
ernment has begun to pay attention to and deal with the relationship
between ecological resources and environmental endowments and the
carrying capacity of tourist destinations. In particular, the construction
of Hainan International Tourism Island began in 2010, and tourism
planning for Sanya city has been adjusted accordingly, indicating that
the implementation of relevant planning has had a positive impact on
changes in ecosystem services.
Tourism development and ecosystem services are a remarkable two-
way interaction process, which complement each other and achieve
each other mediated by change in land use pattern (Drius et al., 2019;
Chen, 2020a; Chen, 2020b). Great tourism resources are the basis of
tourism development (Andereck et al., 2005), Through the integration
and linkage of tourism resources in the region, the diffusion effect of
tourism central cities can be exerted. The development of tourism is
based on the ecosystem, changes in the regional ecosystem affect the
tourist experience and attractiveness and are relevant to the sustain­
ability of tourism (Li et al., 2020).
8
Ecological Indicators 145 (2022) 109607
4.2. Comparison with other tourist destinations
Trade-offs between tourism development and ecosystem services are
inevitable (Grêt-Regamey et al., 2008; Gabriele et al., 2018; Muzafar
et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2012). Combined with the relevant studies of
the Mediterranean tourist area (Drius et al., 2019), Davos tourist town in
the Swiss Alps (Adrienne et al., 2008), Wulingyuan scenic area (Chen,
2020a; Chen, 2020b), Erhai lake basin (Li et al., 2020) and other case
areas, we found that tourism development in the early stage, the
Municipal government gave support in the form of financial and land use
policies. In terms of finance, the government gave priority to the ex­
amination and approval of tourism projects, comprehensively building
scenic spots and the supporting infrastructure for them, cultivating the
coastal tourism industry and strengthening publicity and promotion
(Adrienne et al.,2008; Drius et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020). In terms of land,
through the formulation of macro control policies such as comprehen­
sive urban planning and tourism development planning, newly supplied
land can meet the needs of tourism land as much as possible; the land
policy was oriented towards tourism(Chen, 2020a; Chen, 2020b; Hu
et al., 2018). The government’s inclination in fiscal and land policies is
directly reflected in the landscape pattern, which leads to changes in
regional landscape quantity and landscape patterns such as landscape
fragmentation and landscape connectivity. Landscape fragmentation
has become one of the main factors causing the decline of biodiversity
(Evans et al., 2007; Li et al., 2020).
In coastal tourism cities, such as Sanya and Mediterranean tourist
P. Wang et al.
Fig. 7. Factors affecting ecosystem services in Sanya in 2000 and 2018. DEM, Digital Elevation Model. P: precipitation. T, temperature. FVC, fractional vegetation
coverage. GDP, gross national product. POP, population density. UR, urbanization rate. TA, Tourist attraction. AC, Accommodation capacity. DCH, Density of
commercial housing.
cities, large numbers of high-quality tourism resources were concen­
trated in the coastal area, tourism land gradually increased, and the
surrounding tourism infrastructure and supporting service facilities
gradually improved. Meanwhile, tourist numbers and seasonal pop­
ulations have been increasing, which has led to trade-offs in ecosystem
services; the diverse and varying needs for ecosystem services could not
be met, which generates competition and thus affects the stability of the
regional ecosystem (Vogdrup-Schmidt et al., 2017; Stosch et al., 2019).
4.3. Management implications
Sanya aimed to build a “tropical coastal scenic area” and emphasized
the priority of tourism. The urbanization of tourism industry has driven
great changes in the urban population, industrial structure, social
structure and land use of Sanya, which will affect the provisioning,
regulating and cultural services (Ziegler et al., 2019). For example, large
number of tourism infrastructure construction occupied greenbelt,
affecting the runoff and evaporation, biodiversity and climate in the
region (Zhu et al.,2019). The essence of tourism urbanization is to bal­
ance various ecosystem services and promote the development of
tourism (Chen, 2020a; Chen, 2020b). However, tourism system, land
system and ecosystem not only compete with each other, but also seek
for coordinated development. How to coordinate the interaction be­
tween ecological protection and tourism economic development in
Sanya is the key to achieve the stable development of the whole region.
Therefore, we put forward the following suggestions.
First, adherence to a sustainable model of seaside ecotourism
development is needed. We must acknowledge that the development of
seaside tourism in Sanya has promoted local economic growth and
9
Ecological Indicators 145 (2022) 109607
employment; however, the government, local residents and landowners
have focused on only immediate short-term interests and neglected the
protection of the ecological environment, creating an unsustainable
approach to tourism development that has led to the fragmentation of
ecological green spaces, oceans, rivers and other elements, the reduction
of biodiversity and the intensification of the urban heat island effect.
Some debate also exists as to whether the economic and social benefits
created by tourism can cover the environmental costs. This stems from
differences in perceptions of sustainability, with the weak sustainability
school arguing that human-made capital can replace natural capital,
therefore emphasizing the maintenance of capital as a whole (both
natural and human-made capital). The strong sustainability school,
however, believes that the input of one type of capital cannot compen­
sate for the lack of another and emphasizes the priority of maintaining
natural capital (Ziegler et al., 2019). Regardless of the schools of
thought, a consensus for adhering to a sustainable model of tourism
development exists. The ecological environment objectively affects the
attractiveness of tourist destinations. As Sanya is a seaside tourist city,
its ecological environment becomes more important for urban devel­
opment. Therefore, the trade-off between tourism revenue and ecolog­
ical degradation should be considered in the process of seaside tourism
development in Sanya to bring into play the value-added effect of the
ecosystem service values of tourist destinations and promote the coor­
dinated and shared development of urban ecological protection, tourism
development and community building.
Second, reasonable dynamic planning and scientific dynamic moni­
toring should be implemented. Rational development and layout of
tourism resources should occur to strengthen the role of ecological and
environmental support, give play to the role of urbanization drive, and
P. Wang et al.
Fig. 8. Interaction factors of ecosystem services of Sanya in 2018.
enhance the level of inherent coordination between tourism system-land
system-ecosystem (Chen, 2020a; Chen, 2020b). In terms of dynamic
planning, Sanya should take the coastal region as the land for tourism
industry, the Midlands as the land for tropical agricultural development
and the north as the land for ecological protection according to the land
use function. Moreover, Sanya needs to obey the objectives of basic
farmland protection and ecological environment construction, and
strictly and reasonably control the development of tourism real estate. In
terms of dynamic monitoring, the stakeholders should be clarified
(Stosch et al.,2019), needs and preferences of different local interest
groups can be understood, and ecological compensation can be provided
based on the calculation of gains and losses from ecosystem services, and
a cost-sharing and benefit-sharing mechanism can be established (Fisher
et al.,2009; Li et al., 2019). Form a consensus on decision-making after
assessment and analysis, and then carry out planning and design
(Kundzewicz et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2021). We need to identify key
ecosystem services and functional zones, optimize the tourism spatial
development pattern and standardize the spatial order, Build a
10
Ecological Indicators 145 (2022) 109607
sustainable tourism dynamic management and decision-making mech­
anism to achieve eco-friendly adaptive management and maintenance
(Li et al., 2019).
Third, the protection of the coastal zone and its buffer zone should be
strengthened. As a typical coastal tourism city, Sanya has wide and
gentle sandy beaches, white and soft sand, fresh air and clear seawater
that cause tourists to rush to the city, but this influx creates a series of
ecological and environmental problems. The study showed that the
establishment of buffer zone in cities and towns is helpful to reduce
runoff, alleviate greenhouse gas emissions, improve landscape connec­
tivity and increase biodiversity (Daigneault et al., 2017; Gao et al.,
2017). Vegetation has a good control function on nitrogen and phos­
phorus loss and can effectively alleviate non-point pollution (Valkama
et al., 2018; Cao et al., 2018). In addition, studies have confirmed that
the vegetation buffer zone can also intercept other pollutants entering
the water body (Pavlidis et al., 2018). River ecological buffer is not only
a transition zone between land and water, but also a green ecological
shelter to protect the ecological environment of rivers. Actual barriers
P. Wang et al.
Fig. 9. Core density of tourism service facilities in Sanya.
along streams and rivers are being eroded, the obvious example is that
the mangrove area in Sanya has been decreasing over the last 50 years,
and even in some places, mangroves have disappeared (Yang et al.,
2012). In addition to climate change, the increases in built-up land,
anthropogenic reclamation, land pollution, and direct interference from
tourist behaviour are also major causes. Therefore, it is necessary to
establish buffer zones in the coastal zone, strictly control the land for
construction in the coastal zone and its buffer zone and increase green
land such as pocket parks and slow travel paths. We should also treat
land use approval strictly and deal with illegal and unlawful land use
seriously to reduce the pressure on land in the seaside area.
4.4. Limitations and prospects
Taking Sanya as an example, this study reveals the impact of coastal
tourism development on ecosystem services, which is a useful supple­
ment to the current research on ecosystem services. Additionally, it
provides an empirical case for the sustainable development of tourism-
oriented cities and towns. However, we only analysed WY, CS, SR and
HQ in Sanya, without involving other ecosystem services, and tourism
development will also have an impact on climate change, pollination,
tourism and leisure services. In future research, various ecosystem ser­
vices should be further comprehensively analysed, and the integrated
management of tourism land systems and ecosystems should be opti­
mized; this will be helpful in making decisions for sustainable tourism
development. The relationships among tourism development, land use
and ecosystem services are extremely complex and driven by multiple
factors, such as society, politics and the economy. Therefore, the impact
mechanism of sustainable development for the tourism industry and
ecological environment is a research area worthy of in-depth explora­
tion (Chen, 2020a; Chen, 2020b). In addition, cultural ecosystem ser­
vices are currently subjective and nonmaterial; thus, evaluating them
quantitatively is difficult. In the selection of case sites, we only take
Sanya as an example, and do not involve coastal tourist cities of different
types and development stages. In future research, we need to analyse
different types of coastal tourism city ecosystem services and their
influencing factors based on multi-scale perspective. At the same time,
based on big data, we can accurately evaluate and effectively predict
tourism and entertainment culture ecosystem services on a lager range,
11
Ecological Indicators 145 (2022) 109607
and hope to provide comprehensive, multi-level and wide-ranging
guidance for government management decisions.
5. Conclusion
Trough the model of WY, SR, CS and HQ in the InVEST software, we
evaluated land use change and ecosystem services of Sanya from 2000 to
2018. By integrating geographical detector model and social-ecological
data, we discussed the factors affecting ecosystem service. The main
conclusions are as follows: (1) We found that from 2000 to 2018, the
growth rate of built-up land in Sanya was the fastest, especially in the
coastal areas, large numbers of cropland and woodland were converted
into built-up land, and the built-up land area increased about 7 times
between 2000 and 2018. (2) In terms of spatial distribution, the coastal
zone had lower CS, SR and HQ than those of noncoastal zone, and the
downwards trend was more obvious, but the WY was higher than that of
noncoastal zone. In terms of time distribution, the decline in ecosystem
services in Sanya from 2010 to 2018 was less than that from 2000 to
2010, indicating that the effect of ecological protection measures in
Sanya has been obvious in recent years and the downwards trend of
ecosystem services has decreased. (3) The ecosystem services of Sanya
were mainly affected by the natural environment, but the impact of
tourism factor also gradually became significant. A trade-off relation­
ship was found between Sanya coastal tourism and ecosystem services,
the core density of the four tourism elements was negatively correlated
with SR, CS, and HQ and positively correlated with WY. (4) Trade-off
between ecological protection and tourism development requires to
adhere to a sustainable coastal tourism development model in Sanya.
And it is also necessary to implement reasonable dynamic planning and
scientific dynamic monitoring. The protection of coastal and their buffer
zones should be strengthened to reduce the gap of ecosystem services
between coastal and noncoastal zones.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Peijia Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing. Jingwei Wang: Data curation,
Writing – original draft. Jinhe Zhang: Conceptualization, Supervision,
Writing – review & editing. Xiaobin Ma: Conceptualization,
P. Wang et al.
Supervision. Leying Zhou: Writing – review & editing. Yi Sun: Inves­
tigation, Visualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 42271251;No. 42101218;No.42201238).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109607.
References
Adrienne, G.R., Dienne, G.R., Peter, B., Bishop, I.D., Schmid, W.A., 2008. Linking GIS-
based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpine region. J. Environ. Manage.
89 (3), 197–208.
Andereck, K.L., Valentine, K.M., Knopf, R.C., Vogt, C.A., 2005. Residents’ perceptions of
community tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 32, 1056–1076.
Bai, Y., Ochuodho, T.O., Yang, J., 2019. Impact of land use and climate change on water
related ecosystem services in Kentucky, USA. Ecol. Ind. 102, 51–64.
Budyko, M.I., 1974. Climate and Life. Academic, New York.
Cao, X., Song, C., Xiao, J., 2018. The optimal width and mechanism of riparian buffers
for stormwater nutrient removal in the Chinese eutrophic Lake Chaohu Watershed.
Water 10 (10), 1489.
Chen, H., 2020a. Land use trade-offs associated with protected areas in china: Current
state, existing evaluation methods, and future application of ecosystem service
valuation. Sci. Total Environ. 134688.
Chen, H.J., 2020b. Complementing conventional environmental impact assessments of
tourism with ecosystem service valuation: A case study of the Wulingyuan Scenic
Area, China. Ecosyst. Servi. 43, 101100.
Chen, C., Park, T., Wang, X., Piao, S., Xu, B., Chaturvedi, R.K., et al., 2019. China and
India lead in greening of the world through land-use management. Nat.
Sustainability 2 (2), 122–129.
Costanza, R., 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment: ecosystems and human well-
being: wetlands and water synthesis. Data Fus. Concep. Ideas 656 (1), 87–98.
Costanza, R., Arge Groot, R.D., Farberk, S., Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world’s
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387 (15), 253–260.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., Van der ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I.,
et al., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environ.
Change 26, 152–158.
Daigneault, A.J., Eppink, F.V., Lee, W.G., 2017. A national riparian restoration program
in New Zealand: Is it value for money? J. Environ. Manage. 187, 166–177.
Deng, C., Liu, J., Nie, X., Li, Z., Liu, Y., Xiao, H., et al., 2021. How trade-offs between
ecological construction and urbanization expansion affect ecosystem services. Ecol.
Ind. 2021 (122), 107253.
Drius, M., Bongiorni, L., Depellegrin, D., Menegon, S., Stifter, S., 2019. Tackling
challenges for Mediterranean sustainable coastal tourism: An ecosystem service
perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 652, 1302–1317.
Evans, K.L., Greenwood, J.J.D., Gaston, K.J., 2007. The positive correlation between
avian species richness and human population density in Britain is not attributable to
sampling bias. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 300–304.
Feng, Q., Zhao, W.W., Fu, B.J., Ding, J.Y., Wang, S., 2017. Ecosystem service trade-offs
and their influencing factors: A case study in the Loess Plateau of China. Sci. Total
Environ. 607–608, 1250–1263.
Finlayson, M., Cruz, R.D., Davidson, N., Alder, J., Cork, S., Groot, R., et al., 2005.
Millennium ecosystem assessment: ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and
water synthesis. Data Fus. Conc. Ideas 656 (1), 87–98.
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services
for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68 (3), 643–653.
Gabriele, G., Silvia, A., Lorenzo, M., Juri, N., 2018. Impact of an invasive herbivore and
human trampling on lichen-rich dry grasslands: Soil-dependent response of multiple
taxa. Sci. Total Environ. 639, 633–639.
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.
12
Ecological Indicators 145 (2022) 109607
Gou, M., Li, L., Ouyang, S., Wang, N., La, L., Liu, C., Xiao, W., 2021. Identifying and
analyzing ecosystem service bundles and their socioecological drivers in the Three
Gorges Reservoir Area. J. Cleaner Prod. 307, 127208.
Grêt-Regamey, A., Bebi, P., Bishop, I.D., Schmid, W.A., 2008. Linking GIS-based models
to value ecosystem services in an alpine region. J. Environ. Manage. 89 (3),
197–208.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin-Young, M., 2018. Revision of the common international
classification for ecosystem services (CICES V5. 1): a policy brief. One. Ecosystems 3,
e27108.
Hamel, P., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Sim, S., Mueller, C., 2015. A new approach to modeling
the sediment retention service (InVEST 3.0): case study of the Cape Fear catchment,
North Carolina, USA. Sci. Total Environ. 524–525, 166–177.
Hao, R., Yu, D., Sun, Y., Shi, M., 2019. The features and influential factors of interactions
among ecosystem services. Ecol. Ind. 101, 770–779.
Hindsley, P., Yoskowitz, D., 2020. Global change—Local values: Assessing tradeoffs for
coastal ecosystem services in the face of sea level rise. Global Environ. Change 61
(3), 102039.
Hu, H., Fu, B., Lü, Y., Zheng, Z., 2015. SAORES: a spatially explicit assessment and
optimization tool for regional ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol. 30 (3), 547–560.
Hu, H., Zhang, J.H., Chu, G., Yang, J.H., Yu, P., 2018. Factors influencing tourists’ litter
management behavior in mountainous tourism areas in China. Waste Manage. 79,
273–286.
Inostroza, L., Zasada, I., König, H.J., 2016. Last of the wild revisited: Assessing spatial
patterns of human impact on landscapes in Southern Patagonia, Chile. Regl. Environ.
Change 16 (7), 2071–2085.
Jopke, C., Kreyling, J., Maes, J., Koellner, T., 2015. Interactions among ecosystem
services across Europe: bagplots and cumulative correlation coefficients reveal
synergies, trade-offs, and regional patterns. Ecol. Ind. 49, 46–52.
Junaid, A.M., 2022. Advances in Bioremediation and Phytoremediation for Sustainable
Soil Management Principles. Springer, Monitoring and Remediation.
Keller, A.A., Fournier, E., Fox, J., 2015. Minimizing impacts of land use change on
ecosystem services using multi-criteria heuristic analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 156,
23–30.
Kindu, M., Schneider, T., Teketay, D., Knoke, K., 2016. Changes of ecosystem service
values in response to land use/land cover dynamics in Munessa-Shashemene land
scape of the Ethiopian highlands, science of the total environment, 547, 137–147.
Kram, M., Bedford, C., Durnin, M., Luo, Y., Rokpelnis, K., Roth, B., et al., 2012.
Protecting China’s Biodiversity: A Guide to Land Use, Land Tenure, and Land
Protection Tools. The Nature Conservancy, Beijing.
Kundzewicz, Z.W., Krysanova, V., Benestad, R.E., Hov, O., Piniewski, M., Otto, I.M.,
2018. Uncertainty in climate change impacts on water resources. Environ. Sci. Policy
79, 1–8.
Kusi, K.K., Khattabi, A., Mhammdi, N., Lahssini, S., 2020. Prospective evaluation of the
impact of land use change on ecosystem services in the Ourika watershed. Morocco.
Land Use Policy 97, 104796.
Lal, R., 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food
security. Science 304, 1623–1627.
Li, J., Bai, Y., Alatalo, J.M., 2020. Impacts of rural tourism-driven land use change on
ecosystems services provision in Erhai lake basin, china. Ecosyst. Serv. 42, 101081.
Li, S., Bing, Z., Jin, G., 2019. Spatially explicit mapping of soil conservation service in
monetary units due to land use/cover change for the three gorges reservoir area.
China. Remote Sensing 11 (4), 468.
Lin, S., Wu, R., Yang, F., Wang, J., Wu, W., 2018. Spatial trade-offs and synergies among
ecosystem services within a global biodiversity hotspot. Ecol. Ind. 84, 371–381.
Ma, Y., Ling, X., Tong, Y., 2021. Ecosystem service value estimation and spatiotemporal
differentiation characteristics of typical tourism cities at grid scale: a case of Sanya.
Acta Ecologica Sinica 41 (19), 7542–7554.
Mastrangelo, M.E., Weyland, F., Villarino, S.H., Barral, M.P., Nahuelhual, L., Laterra, P.,
2014. Concepts and methods for landscape multifunctionality and a unifying
framework based on ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol. 29 (2), 345–358.
Memoona K., Muhammad I., Veysel T., Hafiz M.T., Muniba F., Ammar A., Samia Y.,
2022. Household chemicals and their impact,201-232.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis
Report. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Mirza, H., Golam, J.A., Kamrun, N., 2022. Managing Plant Production Under Changing
Environment. Springer.
Morri, E., Pruscini, F., Scolozzi, R., Santolini, R., 2014. A forest ecosystem services
evaluation at the river basin scale: supply and demand between coastal areas and
upstream lands (Italy). Ecol. Ind. 37, 210–219.
Muhammad, A.A., Muhammad, I., Hafiz, M.T., Veysel, T., Muniba, F., 2022.
Microcontaminants in wastewater. Environ. Micropollutants 315–329.
Muzafar, S.a., Habibullah, B., Haji, D., 2016. A Cross-Country Analysis on the Impact of
Tourism on Threatened Plant Species. Proced. Soc. Behav. Sci. 224, 14–19.
Natarajan, A., Prittesh, P., Dhruti, A., 2022. Practical Handbook on Agricultural
Microbiology. Springer.
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., et al., 2009.
Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity
production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 4–11.
Oldekop, J.A., Holmes, G., Harris, W.E., Evans, K.L., 2016. A global assessment of the
social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 30, 133–141.
Orsi, F., Ciolli, M., Primmer, E., Varumo, L., Geneletti, D., 2020. Mapping hotspots and
bundles of forest ecosystem services across European Union. Land Use Policy 99,
104840.
Pavlidis, G., Tsihrintzis, V.A., Karasali, H., Alexakis, D., 2018. Tree uptake of excess
nutrients and herbicides in a maize-olive tree cultivation system. J. Environ. Sci.
Health Part AToxic/Hazard. Substan. Environ. Eng. 53 (1), 1–12.
P. Wang et al.
Peters, M.K., Hemp, A., Appelhans, T., Becker, J.N., Behler, C., Classen, A., et al., 2019.
Climate–land-use interactions shape tropical mountain biodiversity and ecosystem
functions. Nature 568 (7750), 88–92.
Potter, C.S., Randerson, J.T., Field, C.B., Matson, P.A., Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A.,
et al., 1993. Terrestrial ecosystem production: A process model based on global
satellite and surface data. Global Biogeochem, Cycles 7 (4), 811–841.
Qi, W., Li, H., Zhang, Q., Zhang, K., 2019. Forest restoration efforts drive changes in land
use/land-cover and water-related ecosystem services in china’s Han river basin.
Ecol. Eng. 126, 64–73.
Qiu, J., Carpenter, S.R., Booth, E.G., Motew, M., Zipper, S.C., Kucharik, C.J., et al., 2018.
Scenarios reveal pathways to sustain future ecosystem services in an agricultural
landscape. Ecol. Appl. 28, 119–134.
Sharp, R,Tallis, H. T,Ricketts, T., 2016. InVEST +VERSION+User’s Guide. The Natural
Capital Project,Stanford University,University of Minnesota,The Nature
Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund.
Sherrouse, B. C.,Semmens, D. J., 2015. Social values for ecosystem services, version 3.0
(solves 3.0): documentation and user manual. Reston,Virginia:U.S. Geological
Survey..
Song, W., Deng, X., 2017. Land-use/land-cover change and ecosystem service provision
in china. Sci. Total Environ. 576, 705–719.
Stosch, K.C., Quilliam, R.S., Bunnefeld, N., Oliver, D.M., 2019. Quantifying stakeholder
understanding of an ecosystem service trade-off. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 2524–2534.
Sun, X., Lu, Z., Li, F., Crittenden, J.C., 2018. Analyzing spatio-temporal changes and
trade-offs to support the supply of multiple ecosystem services in Beijing, China.
Ecol. Ind. 94, 117–129.
Underwood, E.C., Hollander, A.D., Safford, H.D., Kim, J.B., Srivastava, L., Drapek, R.J.,
2019. The impacts of climate change on ecosystem services in southern California.
Ecosystem Service 39, 101008.
Valkama, E., Usva, K., Saarinen, M., Uusi-Kämppä, J., 2018. A Meta-Analysis on nitrogen
retention by buffer zones. J. Environ. Qual. 48 (2), 270–279.
Villa, F., Bagstad, K.J., Johnson, G.W., Voigt, B., 2011. Scientific instruments for climate
change adaptation: estimating and optimizing the efficiency of ecosystem service
provision. Economia Agraria Y Recursos Naturales 11 (1), 83–98.
Vogdrup-Schmidt, M., Strange, N., Olsen, S.B., Thorsen, B.J., 2017. Trade off analysis of
ecosystem service provision in nature networks. Ecosyst. Serv. 23, 165–173.
Wan, L., Ye, X., Lee, J., Lu, X., Zheng, L., Wu, K., 2015. Effects of urbanization on
ecosystem service values in a mineral resource-based city. Habitat Int. 46, 54–63.
Wang, Y., Dai, E., 2020. Spatial-temporal changes in ecosystem services and the trade-off
relationship in mountain regions: A case study of Hengduan Mountain region in
Southwest China. J. Cleaner Prod. 264 (12), 121573.
Wang, Y., Zhao, J., Fu, J., Wei, W., 2019. Effects of the Grain for Green Program on the
water ecosystem services in an arid area of China—Using the Shiyang River Basin as
an example. Ecol. Ind. 104, 659–668.
Wang, W., Guo, H., Chuai, X., Dai, C., Lai, L., Zhang, M., 2014. The impact of land use
change on the temporospatial variations of ecosystems services value in China and
an optimized land use solution. Environ. Sci. Policy 44, 62–72.
Wang, J., Ho, S.S.H., Cao, J., Huang, R., Zhou, J., Zhao, Y., et al., 2015. Characteristics
and major sources of carbonaceous aerosols in pm2.5 from sanya, china. Sci. Total
Environ. 530–531, 110–119.
13
Ecological Indicators 145 (2022) 109607
Wang, G., Innes, J.L., Wu, S.W., Krzyzanowski, J., Yin, Y., Dai, S., et al., 2012. National
park development in China: conservation or commercialization? AMBIO: J. Human
Environ. 41, 247–261.
Wang, J.F., Li, X.H., Christakos, G., Liao, Y.L., Zhang, T., Gu, X., 2010. Geographical
detectors-based health risk assessment and its application in the neural tube defects
study of the Heshun region, China. Int. J. Geograph. Informat. Sci. 24, 107–127.
Wang, D. W., Zhang, D. Q., Lin, B., Chong, J., 2016. Quantification and assessment of
changes in ecosystem service in the three-river headwaters region, China as a result
of climate variability and land cover change. Ecological indicators: Integrating,
monitoring, assessment and management, 66(Jul.), 199-211.
Williams, J.R., Arnold, J.G., 1997. A system of erosion-sediment yield models. Soil
Technol. 11 (1), 43–55.
Wischmeier, W., Smith, D., 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to
Conservation Planning. US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.
Xu, Z., Fan, W., Wei, H., Zhang, P., Ren, J., Gao, Z., et al., 2019. Evaluation and
simulation of the impact of land use change on ecosystem services based on a carbon
flow model: A case study of the Manas River Basin of Xinjiang, China. Sci. Total
Environ. 652, 117–133.
Yang, F., Yang, C.J., Sun, N., Chen, C., Lin, G., 2012. Landscape Features and Its
Protection and Utilization of Mangrove Forest in Sanya. Central South Forest
Inventory and Planning.
Zhang, L.Q., Peng, J., Liu, Y.X., Wu, J.S., 2017. Coupling ecosystem services supply and
human ecological demand to identify landscape ecological security pattern: a case
study in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, China. Urban Ecosystems 20, 701–714.
Zhu, S., Zhang, J., Hu, H., Chen, C., 2019. Study on the Value-added Effect of Ecosystem
Service Values in Tourism Development. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 03,
603–613.
Ziegler, J.A., Silberg, J.N., Araujo, G., Labaja, J., Ponzo, A., Rollins, R., et al., 2019.
Applying the precautionary principle when feeding an endangered species for
marine tourism. Tourism Manage. 72, 155–158.
Further reading
Estoque, R.C., Murayama, Y., Myint, S.W., 2017. Effects of landscape composition and
pattern on land surface temperature: an urban heat island study in the megacities of
southeast Asia. Sci. Total Environ. 577, 349–359.
Hua, D., Hao, X., 2021. Spatiotemporal change and drivers analysis of desertification in
the arid region of northwest China based on geographic detector. Environ. Challen.
4, 100082.
Peng, J., Hu, X., Wang, X., Meersmans, J., Liu, Y., Qiu, S., 2019. Simulating the impact of
Grain-for-Green Programme on ecosystem services trade-offs in Northwestern
Yunnan, China. Ecosyst. Servic. 39, 100998.
Riensche, M., Castillo, A., Flores-Díaz, A., Maass, M., 2015. Tourism at Costalegre,
Mexico: an ecosystem services-based exploration of current challenges and
alternative futures. Futures 66, 70–84.
Rimba, A.B., Mohan, G., Chapagain, S.K., Arumansawang, A., Avtar, R., 2021. Impact of
population growth and land use and land cover (LULC) changes on water quality in
tourism-dependent economies using a geographically weighted regression approach.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 (20), 25920–25938.