4.7 Article

Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future ecosystem services

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW
卷 40, 期 -, 页码 25-35

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.12.003

关键词

Spatial planning; Ecosystem services; Trade-offs; Scenario analysis; Strategic environmental assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Land use conversions rank among the most significant drivers of change in ecosystem services worldwide, affecting human wellbeing and threatening the survival of other species. Hence, predicting the effects of land use decisions on ecosystem services has emerged as a crucial need in spatial planning, and in the associated Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) practice. The paper presents a case-study research aimed at empirically exploring how the implementation of different land-use zoning policies affect the future provision of a set of ecosystem services (water purification, soil conservation, habitat for species, carbon sequestration and timber production). The study area is located in The Araucania, one of Chile's Administrative Regions. The first part of the methods consisted in the construction of land-use scenarios associated to different policies. Subsequently, the effects of the land-use scenarios on the provision of the selected ecosystem services were assessed in a spatially explicit way, by using modeling tools. Finally, a set of metrics was developed to compare scenarios, and trade-offs in the provision of different ecosystem services were made explicit through trade-off curves. The results indicate that, for this case study, spatial configuration of land uses is as an important factor as their size. This suggests that the analysis of land-use patterns deserves attention, and that this information should be included in scenario exercises aimed to support spatial planning. The paper concludes by discussing the potential contribution of the approach to support SEA of spatial plans. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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