Uncertainties of Two Methods in Selecting Priority Areas for Protecting Soil Conservation Service at Regional Scale

Liwei Zhang, Yihe Lü, Bojie Fu and Yuan Zeng
Additional contact information
Liwei Zhang: School of Geography and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, Shaanxi, China
Yihe Lü: State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
Bojie Fu: State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
Yuan Zeng: Key Laboratory of Digital Earth Science, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 1000101, China

Sustainability, 2017, vol. 9, issue 9, 1-12

Abstract: Soil conservation (SC) is an important ecosystem regulating service. At present, methods for SC mapping to identify priority areas are primarily based on empirical soil erosion models, such as the RUSLE (Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation) based model. However, the parameters of the empirical soil conservation model are based on long-term observations of field experiments at small spatial scales, which are very difficult to obtain and must be simplified when implementing these models at large spatial scales. Such simplification of model parameters may lead to uncertainty in quantifying SC at regional scale. In this study, we have analyzed a new method to map SC in Jiangxi Province of China based on the multiplication of multiple biophysical data. After comparing the spatial-temporal changes of SC from the RUSLE based model and those from the surrogate indicator based method in the study area, the similarities and differences of these methods for identifying SC priority areas were revealed. The result showed that the two methods similarly represented the effects of vegetation coverage and land use types on SC, however, they were significantly different in representing the spatial pattern of SC priority areas and its temporal change. Based on the comparisons, the advantages and drawbacks for both methods were made clear and suggestions were made for the suitable use of the two methods, which may benefit for the research and application of concerning the planning and assessment with SC as key criteria.

Keywords: ecosystem services mapping; ecosystem services conservation; RUSLE; ecological indicators; Jiangxi Province of China (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1577/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1577/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1577-:d:111125

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().