博碩士論文 108330601 詳細資訊



以作者查詢圖書館館藏 、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 、以作者查詢全國書目 、勘誤回報 、線上人數：92 、訪客IP：3.148.106.49
姓名 范忠堅(Pham Trung Kien)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 國際永續發展碩士在職專班
論文名稱
(Effects of Urbanisation on Ecosystem Service Values in Nha Trang, Vietnam)
相關論文
★ 應用經驗模態分解法在福衛五號遙測照像儀之相對輻射校正★ 福爾摩沙衛星五號遙測儀之在軌絕對輻射校正
★ 應用衛星資料及地理資訊系統在印尼BALURAN國家公園野生牛棲息地之測繪★ 利用MISR衛星資料反演陸地區域氣膠光學厚度和地表反射率
★ MTSAT-1R衛星資料在東亞沙塵暴監測及氣膠光學厚度反演之探討★ 結合衛星與地面觀測氣膠輻射參數在東南亞地區氣膠種類辨識之應用
★ 衛星資料在臺灣地區西南氣流降雨估算之應用★ MODIS衛星資料在亞洲地區氣膠種類辨識之應用
★ 結合MODIS與MISR觀測資料在氣膠單次散射反照率反演之應用★ 應用衛星資料探討大台北地區都市熱島效應之時空分布
★ AERONET觀測資料在氣膠種類輻射參數之探討★ 結合衛星資料與建物資訊解析台北市空間發展與都市熱島效應之鏈結
★ 季風輻合效應在台灣地區熱帶氣旋降雨影響之探討★ 衛星資料探討台南都市發展在熱島效應及區域降雨型態之影響
★ 福爾摩沙衛星二號遙測照相儀之在軌相互輻射校正★ Landsat-7衛 星 資 料 反 演 都 市 大 氣 氣膠光學厚度之研究與應用
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   [檢視]  [下載]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
  3. 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中) 人類活動對於環境的地形地貌有著極大的影響，進而衝擊了生態系統與其功能。矛盾的是，生態系統的複雜條件和運作過程中產生了人類賴以生存的一系列商品和服務。為瞭解並量化人類活動對於生態系統之衝擊，本研究利用1990年、2000年、2011年和2020年的 Landsat 衛星影像獲取這期間土地利用及地物變化的訊息，以研究越南芽莊市的都市化程度及其對生態系服務價值 (ESV) 的影響。在生態系服務價值的計算，本研究使用前人研究所修改的ESV係數，來觀察土地利用所引起的ESV變化趨勢。結果顯示，隨著城市地區的擴張和密集化，ESV有著顯著下降。隨著森林復育計劃的成功，芽莊市的年ESV從1990年的 1.487億美元增加到2000年的1.722億美元，隨後因為城市於原本應為耕地的地區快速發展，在2020年又下降到1.493 億美元。根據結果，本研究亦討論了將ESV 納入城市治理後的一些影響，探討結果建議，區域性的土地利用計畫應優先考慮基於生態系統的管理，其長期的效益將優於短期關注的經濟收益。根據本研究結果顯示，確保環境生態系統的多樣性與穩定發展，對於氣候適應型沿海城市的永續發展至關重要。
摘要(英) Anthropogenic activities have greatly reshaped the environmental landscape and altered land composition, thereby negatively affecting the ecosystem′s structures and functions. Paradoxically, the complex conditions and procedures of ecosystem operations generate a range of goods and services on which humans rely to thrive. To understand and quantify the impact on the ecosystem, this study examines the urbanisation pattern and its effects on ecosystem service values (ESV) in Nha Trang, Vietnam, by obtaining land-use/land-cover changes information derived from Landsat satellite imagery in 1990, 2000, 2011 and 2020. The modified ESV coefficients from previous studies were employed to examine the directional change of ESV induced by land-use practice. The results showed a significant decrease of ESV associated with the expansion and densification of urban areas during the past 30 years. Total annual ESV in Nha Trang increased from US$ 148.7 million in 1990 to US$ 172.2 million in 2000 due to the success of the forest rehabilitation programme, then declined to US$ 149.3 million in 2020 because of the rapid development of urban agglomeration at the expense of cultivated land. Drawing from the outcomes, some implications for integrating ESV in urban governance were discussed. The investigation results argue that the priority of regional land-use planning should be given to ecosystem-based approaches rather than focusing on the economic gain in the short term. Therefore, it can be concluded that ensuring the stable delivery of multiple ecosystem services is critical for building a climate-resilient coastal city and sustainable development.
關鍵字(中) ★ 都市化
★ 地形地貌與土地利用
★ 生態系服務價值
★ 永續發展
★ 經濟收益		 關鍵字(英) ★ Urbanisation
★ Landscape and land use
★ Ecosystem service value
★ Sustainable development
★ Economic gain
論文目次 摘要 i
English Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables viii
List of Abbreviations ix
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Study area 5
1.4 Research Objectives and Methodological Framework 7
Chapter 2. Literature Review 8
2.1 Interrelationship of Human and Ecosystem Services 8
2.1.1 Ecosystems, Well-being, and Equity 8
2.1.2 Anthropogenic Interference and Ecosystem Responses 10
2.2 Mainstreaming Ecosystem Service into Policy 15
2.2.1 Earth Observation and Ecosystem Service Mapping 17
2.2.2 Economic Value of Ecosystem Service 19
Chapter 3. Materials and Methodology 23
3.1 Data Description 23
3.1.1 Remote Sensing Data 23
3.1.2 Ancillary Data 26
3.2 Methodology 27
3.2.1 Multitemporal Land Cover Changes Analysis 27
3.2.3 Map Accuracy Assessment 34
3.2.3 Ecosystem Service Value Estimation 38
Chapter 4. Results and Discussion 41
4.1 Land Use Land Cover Transition 41
4.1.1 Accuracy of Land Classification 41
4.1.2 Land Use Land Cover Change Assessment 42
4.2.3 Driving Forces of Land Use Changes 51
4.2 Ecosystem Service Estimation 56
4.2.1 Ecosystem Service Values Annual Flow 56
4.2.2 Individual ESV Assessment 59
4.2.3 Spatial distribution of Ecosystem Service Values 62
4.3 Urban Ecosystem Service Governance 65
4.3.1 Challenges and Opportunities 65
4.3.2 Integrating Urban Ecosystem Service 67
4.4 Restriction of Approach 69
4.4.1 Uncertainties in Multi-temporal Analysis 69
4.4.2 Uncertainties in Benefit Transfer Method 69
Chapter 5. Conclusion 71
References 73
Appendixes 83
參考文獻 1. Salles, J.M. Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: Why put economic values on nature? Comptes Rendus - Biol. 2011, 334, 469–482, doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2011.03.008.
2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis Report; Island Press: Washington, DC, 2005; ISBN 9781610914840.
3. Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R. V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260, doi:10.1038/387253a0.
4. de Groot, R.; Brander, L.; van der Ploeg, S.; Costanza, R.; Bernard, F.; Braat, L.; Christie, M.; Crossman, N.; Ghermandi, A.; Hein, L.; et al. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 50–61, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005.
5. Daily, G.C.; Polasky, S.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; Mooney, H.A.; Pejchar, L.; Ricketts, T.H.; Salzman, J.; Shallenberger, R. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 21–28, doi:10.1890/080025.
6. TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations; Kumar, P., Ed.; Routledge, 2012; ISBN 978-0415501088.
7. Díaz, S.; Demissew, S.; Carabias, J.; Joly, C.; Lonsdale, M.; Ash, N.; Larigauderie, A.; Adhikari, J.R.; Arico, S.; Báldi, A.; et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 1–16, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
8. Guerry, A.D.; Polasky, S.; Lubchenco, J.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Daily, G.C.; Griffin, R.; Ruckelshaus, M.; Bateman, I.J.; Duraiappah, A.; Elmqvist, T.; et al. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2015, 112, 7348–7355, doi:10.1073/pnas.1503751112.
9. Daily, G.C.; Postel, S.; Bawa, K.; Kaufman, L.; Peterson, C.H.; Carpenter, S.; Tillman, D.; Dayton, P.; Alexander, S.; Lagerquist, K.; et al. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence On Natural Ecosystems; Nature / science; Island Press, 1997; ISBN 9781559634762.
10. Osborn, F. Our Plundered Planet; Little, Brown and Company, 1948;
11. Westman, W.E. How Much Are Nature’s Services Worth ? Science (80-. ). 1977, 197, 960–964.
12. Odum, E.P..; Odum, H.. Natural areas as necessary components of man’s total environment. Trans North Am Wildl Nat Res Conf 1972, 37th, 178–189.
13. Ehrlich, P.R.; Ehrlich, A. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species; New York: Random House, 1981;
14. Schumacher, E.F. Small Is Beautiful. A Study of Economics As If People Mattered; London: Blond & Briggs, 1973;
15. Daily, G.C.; Alexander, S.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Goulder, L.; Lubchenco, J.; Matson, P.A.; Mooney, H.A.; Postel, S.; Schneider, S.H.; Tilman, D.; et al. Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Issues Ecol. 1997.
16. De Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 393–408, doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7.
17. Schröter, M.; van der Zanden, E.H.; van Oudenhoven, A.P.E.; Remme, R.P.; Serna-Chavez, H.M.; de Groot, R.S.; Opdam, P. Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique and Counter-Arguments. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 514–523, doi:10.1111/conl.12091.
18. United Nation World Urbanization Prospects; 2018; Vol. 12; ISBN 9789211483192.
19. Brink, E.; Aalders, T.; Ádám, D.; Feller, R.; Henselek, Y.; Hoffmann, A.; Ibe, K.; Matthey-Doret, A.; Meyer, M.; Negrut, N.L.; et al. Cascades of green: A review of ecosystem-based adaptation in urban areas. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 36, 111–123, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.003.
20. Xuan, B.B.; Sandorf, E.D.; Aanesen, M. Informing management strategies for a reserve: Results from a discrete choice experiment survey. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 145, 35–43, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.05.004.
21. Ngoc, Q.T.K. Assessing the value of coral reefs in the face of climate change: The evidence from Nha Trang Bay, Vietnam. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 35, 99–108, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.11.008.
22. Nam, P.; Son, T. Recreational value of the coral-surrounded Hon Mun Islands in Vietnam; Singapore, 2001;
23. Todd, P.A.; Heery, E.C.; Loke, L.H.L.; Thurstan, R.H.; Kotze, D.J.; Swan, C. Towards an urban marine ecology: characterizing the drivers, patterns and processes of marine ecosystems in coastal cities. Oikos 2019, 128, 1215–1242, doi:10.1111/oik.05946.
24. Ministry of Construction Vietnam Building Code Natural Physical and Climatic Data for Construction. 2009.
25. Khanh Hoa Statistical Office 2019’s Khanh Hoa statistical Yearbook; 2020;
26. Clark, D.; Mcgillivray, M. Measuring Human Well-being: Key Findings and Policy Lessons; Helsinki, Finland, Finland, 2007;
27. Exton, C.; Shinwell, M. Policy use of well-being metrics; OECD Statistics Working Papers; OECD Publishing, Paris, Paris, 2018;
28. Stern, N. The economics of climate change: The stern review. Econ. Clim. Chang. Stern Rev. 2007, 9780521877, 1–692, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511817434.
29. Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.F.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature 2009, 461, 472–475, doi:10.1038/461472a.
30. Farley, J. Ecosystem services: The economics debate. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 40–49, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.002.
31. Vitousek, P.M.; Mooney, H.A.; Lubchenco, J.; Melillo, J.M. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science (80-. ). 1997, 277, 494–499, doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.494.
32. Steffen, W.; Crutzen, P.J.; McNeill, J.R. The anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio 2007, 36, 614–621, doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[614:TAAHNO]2.0.CO;2.
33. Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Peterson, G.D.; Teng, M.; Bennett, E.M.; Holland, T.; Benessaiah, K.; MacDonald, G.K.; Pfeifer, L. Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: Why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? Bioscience 2010, 60, 576–589, doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4.
34. Barnes, P.; Barnes, P.; Francisco, S. Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons; 2008; Vol. 61; ISBN 9781576753613.
35. Houghton, R.A.; Hackler, J.L. Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Changes : 1850 to 1990. Environ. Sci. Div. Off. Biol. Environ. Res. U.S. Dep. Energy 2001, 1–18.
36. Matson, P.A.; Parton, W.J.; Power, A.G.; Swift, M.J. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science (80-. ). 1997, 277, 504–509, doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.504.
37. Smith, V.H. Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems: A global problem. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2003, 10, 126–139, doi:10.1065/espr2002.12.142.
38. Foley, J.A.; DeFries, R.; Asner, G.P.; Barford, C.; Bonan, G.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; Coe, M.T.; Daily, G.C.; Gibbs, H.K.; et al. Global consequences of land use. Science (80-. ). 2005, 309, 570–574, doi:10.1126/science.1111772.
39. Hasan, S.S.; Zhen, L.; Miah, M.G.; Ahamed, T.; Samie, A. Impact of land use change on ecosystem services: A review. Environ. Dev. 2020, 34, 100527, doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100527.
40. Costanza, R. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 350–352, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020.
41. Staub, C.; Ott, W.; Heusi, F.; Klingler, G.; Jenny, A.; Häcki, M.; Hauser, A. Indicators for Ecosystem Goods and Services: Framework, methodology and recommendations for a welfare-related environmental reporting; Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), 2011;
42. Landers, D.H.; Nahlik, A.M. Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS). 2013, 108.
43. Wallace, K.J. Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139, 235–246, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015.
44. Boyd, J.; Banzhaf, S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 616–626, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002.
45. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services ( CICES ): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. Contract 2010, 30.
46. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Consultation on CICES Version 4 , August-December 2012 Report to the European Environment Agency Revised January 2013. 2013, 1–34.
47. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M.B. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Available from www.cices.eu. 2017.
48. Potschin, M.B.; Haines-Young, R.H. Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2011, 35, 575–594, doi:10.1177/0309133311423172.
49. Montgomery, M.R.; Stren, R.; Cohen, B.; Reed, H.E. Cities transformed: Demographic change and its implications in the developing world; 2003; Vol. 9781315065; ISBN 9781315065700.
50. International Resource Panel The weight of cities: resource requirements of future urbanization; 2018;
51. Alberti, M. Maintaining ecological integrity and sustaining ecosystem function in urban areas. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2010, 2, 178–184, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.07.002.
52. Robert I., M.; Peter J., M.; Güneralp, B. Urbanization and Global Trends in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, 2013 ISBN 978-94-007-7087-4.
53. Liu, Z.; He, C.; Zhou, Y.; Wu, J. How much of the world’s land has been urbanized, really? A hierarchical framework for avoiding confusion. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 763–771, doi:10.1007/s10980-014-0034-y.
54. United Nations Environment Programme Emissions Gap Report 2019; Nairobi, 2019; ISBN 9789280737660.
55. Rees, W.; Wackernagel, M. Urban Ecological Footprints: Why Cities Cannot be Sustainable-and Why They are a Key to Sustainability. In Urban Ecology; Springer, 2008; pp. 537–555 ISBN 9781136244155.
56. UN-Habitat World Cities Report 2020: The Value of Sustainable Urbanization; Nairobi, Kenya, 2020;
57. Bolund, P.; Hunhammar, S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29, 293–301, doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0.
58. Escobedo, F.J.; Nowak, D.J. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 90, 102–110, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.10.021.
59. Jim, C.Y. Assessing climate-adaptation effect of extensive tropical green roofs in cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 138, 54–70, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.014.
60. Lyytimäki, J.; Sipilä, M. Hopping on one leg - The challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 309–315, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.003.
61. Hofmann, M.; Westermann, J.R.; Kowarik, I.; Van der Meer, E. Perceptions of parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 303–312, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.04.001.
62. Arnold, E. Pollution – load zones of allergic tree pollen in Boston. Ecol. Lett. 2012, 8, 1218–1234.
63. Von Döhren, P.; Haase, D. Ecosystem disservices research: A review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 52, 490–497, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.027.
64. Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.Y.; Zhang, G.; Chen, Y. On the spatial relationship between ecosystem services and urbanization: A case study in Wuhan, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 637–638, 780–790, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.396.
65. Juanita, A.D.; Ignacio, P.; Jorgelina, G.A.; Cecilia, A.S.; Carlos, M.; Francisco, N. Assessing the effects of past and future land cover changes in ecosystem services, disservices and biodiversity: A case study in Barranquilla Metropolitan Area (BMA), Colombia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 37, 100915, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100915.
66. Rimal, B.; Sharma, R.; Kunwar, R.; Keshtkar, H.; Stork, N.E.; Rijal, S.; Rahman, S.A.; Baral, H. Effects of land use and land cover change on ecosystem services in the Koshi River Basin, Eastern Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 38, 100963, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100963.
67. Wenzel, A.; Grass, I.; Belavadi, V. V.; Tscharntke, T. How urbanization is driving pollinator diversity and pollination – A systematic review. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 241, 108321, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108321.
68. Buyantuyev, A.; Wu, J. Urbanization alters spatiotemporal patterns of ecosystem primary production: A case study of the Phoenix metropolitan region, USA. J. Arid Environ. 2009, 73, 512–520, doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.12.015.
69. Lyu, R.; Zhang, J.; Xu, M.; Li, J. Impacts of urbanization on ecosystem services and their temporal relations: A case study in Northern Ningxia, China. Land use policy 2018, 77, 163–173, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.022.
70. Wang, J.; Zhou, W.; Pickett, S.T.A.; Yu, W.; Li, W. A multiscale analysis of urbanization effects on ecosystem services supply in an urban megaregion. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 662, 824–833, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.260.
71. Power, A.G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2959–2971, doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0143.
72. Zhang, W.; Ricketts, T.H.; Kremen, C.; Carney, K.; Swinton, S.M. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 253–260, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024.
73. Barral, M.P.; Villarino, S.; Levers, C.; Baumann, M.; Kuemmerle, T.; Mastrangelo, M. Widespread and major losses in multiple ecosystem services as a result of agricultural expansion in the Argentine Chaco. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 2485–2498, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13740.
74. Liang, J.; Li, S.; Li, X.; Li, X.; Liu, Q.; Meng, Q.; Lin, A.; Li, J. Trade-off analyses and optimization of water-related ecosystem services (WRESs) based on land use change in a typical agricultural watershed, southern China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123851, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123851.
75. Chabert, A.; Sarthou, J.P. Conservation agriculture as a promising trade-off between conventional and organic agriculture in bundling ecosystem services. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 292, 106815, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2019.106815.
76. Yangjian, Z.; Claus, H.; Xiaoyong, Y. Scale-dependent Ecosystem Service. In Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes; Wratten, S., Sandhu, H., Cullen, R., Costanza, R., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2013; pp. 107–121 ISBN 9781405170086.
77. Gomes, L.C.; Bianchi, F.J.J.A.; Cardoso, I.M.; Fernandes Filho, E.I.; Schulte, R.P.O. Land use change drives the spatio-temporal variation of ecosystem services and their interactions along an altitudinal gradient in Brazil. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 35, 1571–1586, doi:10.1007/s10980-020-01037-1.
78. Pretty, J.N.; Noble, A.D.; Bossio, D.; Dixon, J.; Hine, R.E.; De Vries, F.W.T.P.; Morison, J.I.L. Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 1114–1119, doi:10.1021/es051670d.
79. United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity;
80. CBD COP 10 Decision X/2: Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020; DECISIONS ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AT ITS TENTH MEETING; Nagoya, Japan, 2010;
81. CBD National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) Available online: https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/ (accessed on Jun 14, 2021).
82. Kosmus, M.; Renner, I.; Ullrich, S. Integrating Ecosystem Services Into Development Planning; 2018;
83. Kettunen, M.; ten Brink, P.; Underwood, E.; Salomaa, A. Policy needs and opportunities for operationalising the concept of ecosystem services; 2014;
84. ten Brink, P.; Kettunen, M. A policy perspective on mainstreaming ecosystem services: opportunities and risks. In Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services; Routledge, 2016 ISBN 9781138588974.
85. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Vietnam National Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 with Visions to 2030; Social Republic of Vietnam, 2013;
86. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment National Strategy for Environment Protection to 2020 with Visions to 2030; Social Republic of Vietnam, 2012;
87. Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) National Green Growth Strategy for the period 2011-2020 with a vision to 2050; Social Republic of Vietnam, 2012;
88. McElwee, P.; Nghiem, T.; Le, H.; Vu, H.; Tran, N. Payments for environmental services and contested neoliberalisation in developing countries: A case study from Vietnam. J. Rural Stud. 2014, 36, 423–440, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.08.003.
89. Varty, N. Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP/GEF Project : “ Project for Ecosystem Services ( ProEcoServ )”; 2016;
90. Bagstad, K.J.; Semmens, D.J.; Waage, S.; Winthrop, R. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5, 27–39, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.004.
91. Johnson, J.A.; Jones, S.K.; Wood, S.L.R.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Hawthorne, P.L.; Mulligan, M.; Pennington, D.; DeClerck, F.A. Mapping Ecosystem Services to Human Well-being: a toolkit to support integrated landscape management for the SDGs. Ecol. Appl. 2019, 29, 1–14, doi:10.1002/eap.1985.
92. Wood, D. Rethinking the Power of Maps; Guilford Press: New York, 2010; ISBN 9781593853662.
93. Yi, H.; Güneralp, B.; Filippi, A.M.; Kreuter, U.P.; Güneralp, İ. Impacts of Land Change on Ecosystem Services in the San Antonio River Basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 135, 125–135, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.019.
94. Metzger, M.J.; Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Acosta-Michlik, L.; Leemans, R.; Schröter, D. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 114, 69–85, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.025.
95. Tallis, H.; Mooney, H.; Andelman, S.; Balvanera, P.; Cramer, W.; Karp, D.; Polasky, S.; Reyers, B.; Ricketts, T.; Running, S.; et al. A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change. Bioscience 2012, 62, 977–986, doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.7.
96. Chuvieco, E.; Huete, A. Fundamentals of satellite remote sensing; 2009; ISBN 9781420021516.
97. Richardson, L.; Loomis, J.; Kroeger, T.; Casey, F. The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 115, 51–58, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.018.
98. Castro, A.J.; García-Llorente, M.; Martín-López, B.; Palomo, I.; Iniesta-Arandia, I. Multidimensional Approaches in Ecosystem Services Assessment. In Earth Observation of Ecosystem Services; CRC Press, 2014 ISBN 9781466505896.
99. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Ruiz-Pérez, M. Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2011, 35, 613–628, doi:10.1177/0309133311421708.
100. Toman, M. Why not to calculate the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 25, 57–60, doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00017-2.
101. Reyers, B.; Polasky, S.; Tallis, H.; Mooney, H.A.; Larigauderie, A. Finding common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 2012, 62, 503–507, doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.5.12.
102. McCauley, D.J. Selling out on nature. Nature 2006, 443, 27–28, doi:10.1038/443027a.
103. Everard, M. Ecosystem Services: Key Issues; 1st ed.; Routledge: London ; New York : Routledge, 2017. |, 2017; ISBN 9781138692664.
104. European Commission In-depth Report: Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Science for Environment Policy Environment; 2015; ISBN 9789279457258.
105. McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R. Potential energy savings in buildings by an urban tree planting programme in California. Urban For. Urban Green. 2003, 2, 73–86, doi:10.1078/1618-8667-00025.
106. Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Assessing the ecosystem service of air pollutant removal by urban trees in Guangzhou (China). J. Environ. Manage. 2008, 88, 665–676, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.03.035.
107. Silvennoinen, S.; Taka, M.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Koivusalo, H.; Ollikainen, M.; Setälä, H. Monetary value of urban green space as an ecosystem service provider: A case study of urban runoff management in Finland. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 17–27, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.013.
108. Fu, B.J.; Su, C.H.; Wei, Y.P.; Willett, I.R.; Lü, Y.H.; Liu, G.H. Double counting in ecosystem services valuation: Causes and countermeasures. Ecol. Res. 2011, 26, 1–14, doi:10.1007/s11284-010-0766-3.
109. Kenter, J.O.; O’Brien, L.; Hockley, N.; Ravenscroft, N.; Fazey, I.; Irvine, K.N.; Reed, M.S.; Christie, M.; Brady, E.; Bryce, R.; et al. What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol. Econ. 2015, 111, 86–99, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006.
110. Barbier, E.B. Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Econ. Policy 2007, 22, 178–229, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0327.2007.00174.x.
111. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N.; Berry, P.; Dunford, R.; Harrison, P.A. Concepts and methods in ecosystem service valuation. In Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services; 2016 ISBN 9781138588974.
112. Farber, S.C.; Costanza, R.; Wilson, M.A. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 375–392, doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5.
113. Huu Loc, H. Ecosystem Services Approach for Environment Decision Making Applications in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, Kyoto University, 2017.
114. Johnston, R.J.; Wainger, L.A. Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values: A Guide for Researchers and Practitioners; 2015; ISBN 978-9401799294.
115. Kreuter, U.P.; Harris, H.G.; Matlock, M.D.; Lacey, R.E. Change in ecosystem service values in the san antonio area, Texas. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 39, 333–346, doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00250-6.
116. Tolessa, T.; Senbeta, F.; Kidane, M. The impact of land use/land cover change on ecosystem services in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 23, 47–54, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.010.
117. Hasan, S.; Shi, W.; Zhu, X. Impact of land use land cover changes on ecosystem service value - A case study of Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao in South China. PLoS One 2020, 15, 1–20, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231259.
118. Koetse, M.J.; Brouwer, R.; Van Beukering, P.J.H. Economic valuation methods for ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. From concept to Pract. 2015, 108–131, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107477612.009.
119. Plummer, M.L. Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 38–45, doi:10.1890/080091.
120. Aschonitis, V.G.; Gaglio, M.; Castaldelli, G.; Fano, E.A. Criticism on elasticity-sensitivity coefficient for assessing the robustness and sensitivity of ecosystem services values. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 20, 66–68, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.004.
121. Vermote, E.; Justice, C.; Claverie, M.; Franch, B. Preliminary analysis of the performance of the Landsat 8/OLI land surface reflectance product. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 185, 46–56, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2016.04.008.
122. Woodcock, C.E.E.; Allen, R.; Anderson, M.; Belward, A.; Bindschadler, R.; Cohen, W.; Gao, F.; Goward, S.N.N.; Helder, D.; Helmer, E.; et al. Free access to landsat imagery. Science (80-. ). 2008, 320, 1011, doi:10.1126/science.320.5879.1011a.
123. Zhu, Z.; Wulder, M.A.; Roy, D.P.; Woodcock, C.E.; Hansen, M.C.; Radeloff, V.C.; Healey, S.P.; Schaaf, C.; Hostert, P.; Strobl, P.; et al. Benefits of the free and open Landsat data policy. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 224, 382–385, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2019.02.016.
124. USGS Landsat 4-7 Collection 1 (C1) Surface Reflectance (LEDAPS) Product Guide. 2020, 1.
125. USGS Landsat 8 Collection 1 (C1) Land Surface Reflectance Code (LaSRC) Product Guide. Lsds-1368 2020, 1, 1–38.
126. Song, C.; Woodcock, C.E.; Seto, K.C.; Lenney, M.P.; Macomber, S.A. Classification and Change Detection Using Landsat TM Data: When and How to Correct Atmospheric Effects? Remote Sens. Environ. 2001, 75, 230–244, doi:10.1016/s0034-4257(00)00169-3.
127. Planet Team Planet Application Program Interface: In Space for Life on Earth. San Francisco, CA, USA. Planet Labs Inc 2017, 1–56.
128. Ball, G.H.; Hall, D.J. ISODATA, a novel method of data analysis and pattern classification; Menlo Park, California, 1965;
129. Keith, D.A.; Ferrer-paris, J.R.; Nicholson, E.; Kingsford, R.T. IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0: descriptive profiles for biomes and ecosystem functional groups; 2020; ISBN 9782831720777.
130. Lu, D.; Weng, Q. Urban classification using full spectral information of Landsat ETM+ imagery in Marion County, Indiana. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 2005, 71, 1275–1284, doi:10.14358/PERS.71.11.1275.
131. Booth, D.J.; Oldfield, R.B. A comparison of classification algorithms in terms of speed and accuracy after the application of a post-classification modal filter. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1989, 10, 1271–1276, doi:10.1080/01431168908903965.
132. Russell G. Congalton and Kass Green Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data Principles and Practices, Third Edition; 1981; Vol. 53; ISBN 9788578110796.
133. Olofsson, P.; Foody, G.M.; Herold, M.; Stehman, S. V.; Woodcock, C.E.; Wulder, M.A. Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. Remote Sens. Environ. 2014, 148, 42–57, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015.
134. Aronoff, S. The map accuracy report: a user’s view. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 1982, 48, 1309–1312.
135. Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 152–158, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.
136. Brenner, J.; Jiménez, J.A.; Sardá, R.; Garola, A. An assessment of the non-market value of the ecosystem services provided by the Catalan coastal zone, Spain. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2010, 53, 27–38, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.10.008.
137. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator Available online: https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
138. Foody, G.M. Valuing map validation: The need for rigorous land cover map accuracy assessment in economic valuations of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 111, 23–28, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.003.
139. Provincial People’s Committee of Khanh Hoa Announcement of drought mitigation and saltwater intrusion prevention for Khanh Hoa in 2020; (in Vietnamese), 2020;
140. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Vietnam’s Forestry Development Strategy 2006–2020. Off. Gaz. 2007, Issue No., 17–70.
141. Dang, T.K.P.; Turnhout, E.; Arts, B. Changing forestry discourses in Vietnam in the past 20years. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 25, 31–41, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.011.
142. City People’s Committee of Nha Trang Forest Protection and Regeneration Plan in five year (from 2011 - 2015) of Nha Trang city; Nha Trang, (in Vietnamese), 2013;
143. Socialist Republic of Vietnam Land Law; Vietnam, 2013;
144. Dang, T.K.P.; Visseren-Hamakers, I.J.; Arts, B. Forest devolution in Vietnam: From rhetoric to performance. Land use policy 2018, 77, 760–774, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.008.
145. World Bank 2017 Vietnam Post-Typhoon Damrey Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment; 2017;
146. Pant, P.; Huynh, W.; Peltier, R.E. Exposure to air pollutants in Vietnam: Assessing potential risk for tourists. J. Environ. Sci. (China) 2018, 73, 147–154, doi:10.1016/j.jes.2018.01.023.
147. Nguyen, A.D.; Zhao, J. x.; Feng, Y. x.; Hu, W. p.; Yu, K. f.; Gasparon, M.; Pham, T.B.; Clark, T.R. Impact of recent coastal development and human activities on Nha Trang Bay, Vietnam: Evidence from a Porites lutea geochemical record. Coral Reefs 2013, 32, 181–193, doi:10.1007/s00338-012-0962-4.
148. City People’s Committee of Nha Trang Resolution on Urban Development of Nha Trang City by 2020 with Vision towards 2030; (in Vietnamese), 2018;
149. Provincial People’s Committee of Khanh Hoa Decision 201/QD-UBNB Action Plan on Climate Change in Khanh Hoa Province 2016 -2020, vision to 2030; (in Vietnamese), 2016;
150. Wang, X.J. Analysis of problems in urban green space system planning in China. J. For. Res. 2009, 20, 79–82, doi:10.1007/s11676-009-0014-2.
151. Badiu, D.L.; IojǍ, C.I.; PǍtroescu, M.; Breuste, J.; Artmann, M.; NiţǍ, M.R.; GrǍdinaru, S.R.; Hossu, C.A.; Onose, D.A. Is urban green space per capita a valuable target to achieve cities’ sustainability goals? Romania as a case study. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 70, 53–66, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.044.
152. Lafortezza, R.; Chen, J.; van den Bosch, C.K.; Randrup, T.B. Nature-based solutions for resilient landscapes and cities. Environ. Res. 2018, 165, 431–441, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.038.
153. Zölch, T.; Henze, L.; Keilholz, P.; Pauleit, S. Regulating urban surface runoff through nature-based solutions – An assessment at the micro-scale. Environ. Res. 2017, 157, 135–144, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.023.
154. McKinney, M.L.; VerBerkmoes, A. Beneficial Health Outcomes of Natural Green Infrastructure in Cities. Curr. Landsc. Ecol. Reports 2020, 5, 35–44, doi:10.1007/s40823-020-00051-y.
155. Vineyard, D.; Ingwersen, W.W.; Hawkins, T.R.; Xue, X.; Demeke, B.; Shuster, W. Comparing Green and Grey Infrastructure Using Life Cycle Cost and Environmental Impact: A Rain Garden Case Study in Cincinnati, OH. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2015, 51, 1342–1360, doi:10.1111/1752-1688.12320.
156. Turnpenny, J.; Russel, D.; Jordan, A. The challenge of embedding an ecosystem services approach: Patterns of knowledge utilisation in public policy appraisal. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2014, 32, 247–262, doi:10.1068/c1317j.
157. Rinne, J.; Primmer, E. A Case Study of Ecosystem Services in Urban Planning in Finland: Benefits, Rights and Responsibilities. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2016, 18, 286–305, doi:10.1080/1523908X.2015.1076721.
158. Söderman, T.; Kopperoinen, L.; Shemeikka, P.; Yli-Pelkonen, V. Ecosystem services criteria for sustainable development in urban regions. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2012, 14, doi:10.1142/S1464333212500081.
159. McPhearson, T.; Andersson, E.; Elmqvist, T.; Frantzeskaki, N. Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 152–156, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.012.
160. Woodruff, S.C.; BenDor, T.K. Ecosystem services in urban planning: Comparative paradigms and guidelines for high quality plans. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 152, 90–100, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.003.
161. Richards, D.R.; Thompson, B.S. Urban ecosystems: A new frontier for payments for ecosystem services. People Nat. 2019, 1, 249–261, doi:10.1002/pan3.20.
162. Shao, G.; Tang, L.; Liao, J. Overselling overall map accuracy misinforms about research reliability. Landsc. Ecol. 2019, 34, 2487–2492, doi:10.1007/s10980-019-00916-6.
163. Liu, C.; Frazier, P.; Kumar, L. Comparative assessment of the measures of thematic classification accuracy. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 107, 606–616, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2006.10.010.
164. Pontius, R.G.; Millones, M. Death to Kappa: Birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2011, 32, 4407–4429, doi:10.1080/01431161.2011.552923.
165. Foody, G.M. Explaining the unsuitability of the kappa coefficient in the assessment and comparison of the accuracy of thematic maps obtained by image classification. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 239, 111630, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2019.111630.
166. Weng, Q. Remote sensing of impervious surfaces in the urban areas: Requirements, methods, and trends. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 117, 34–49, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2011.02.030.
指導教授 林唐煌(Tang-Huang Lin) 審核日期 2021-7-14
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題，請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407，或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明