ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Analyzing Land-Use Change Scenarios for Ecosystem Services and their Trade-Offs in the Ecological Conservation Area in Beijing, China.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatio-temporal evolution characteristics analysis and optimization prediction of urban green infrastructure: a case study of Beijing, China.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Impact of Cereal Production Displacement from Urban Expansion on Ecosystem Service Values in China: Based on Three Cropland Supplement Strategies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Analyzing Land-Use Change Scenarios for Ecosystem Services and their Trade-Offs in the Ecological Conservation Area in Beijing, China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is generally believed that land-use changes can affect a variety of ecosystem services (ES), but the relationships involved remain unclear due to a lack of systematic knowledge and gaps in data. In order to make rational decisions for land-use planning that is grounded in a systematic understanding of trade-offs between different land-use strategies, it is very important to understand the response mechanisms of various ecosystem services to changes in land-use. Therefore, the objective of our study is to assess the effects of land-use change on six ecosystem services and their trade-offs among the ecosystem services in the ecological conservation area (ECA) in Beijing, China. To do this, we projected future land-use in 2030 under three different scenarios: Business as Usual (BAU), Ecological Protection (ELP), and Rapid Urban Development (RUD), using GeoSOS-FLUS model. Then, we quantified six ecosystem services (carbon storage, soil conservation, water purification, habitat quality, flood regulation, and food production) in response to land-use changes from 2015 to 2030, using a spatially explicit InVEST model. Finally, we illustrated the trade-offs and/or synergistic relationships between each ecosystem service quantified under each of the different scenarios in 2030. Results showed that built-up land is projected to increase by 281.18 km
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.