4.7 Article

Increase or decrease? Integrating the CLUMondo and InVEST models to assess the impact of the implementation of the Major Function Oriented Zone planning on carbon storage

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 118, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106708

关键词

Territorial space regulation; LUCC; Urban expansion; Carbon storage

资金

  1. China National Natural Science Foundation [71763001, 71973038, 71403063]
  2. China National Social Science Foundation [19BGL008]
  3. Innovation Project of Guangxi Graduate Education [YCSW2019004, YCBZ2020005]
  4. Training Plan for 1000 Young and Middle-aged Key Teachers in Guangxi Universities in 2018

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to achieve the dual goals of territorial development optimization and protection, the Major Function Oriented Zone (MFOZ) has implemented differentiated spatial policies, which will lead to significant changes in future land use and ecosystem services. This study takes Nanning, China as the study area, and integrates the CLUMondo model and the InVEST model to assess the impact of land use change on carbon storage from 2010-2015 and 2015-2030 in three different scenarios. The results show that: (1) under the Natural Growth Scenario (NGS) and Economic Development Scenario (EDS), the overall carbon storage in the study area will decrease, while, under the Ecological Protection Scenario (EPS), the overall carbon storage will increase; (2) under the NGS, carbon storage in the key development zone will decrease, while it will increase in the agricultural production zone and in the key ecological function zone; (3) under the EDS, carbon storage will decrease in all the three major functional zones; (4) under the EPS, carbon storage will increase in all the three major functional zones. In the future, the three major functional zones should implement differentiated development policies to further optimize the land spatial development pattern and realize sustainable development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据