Ecosystem services and legal protection of private property. Problem or solution?

Abstract

Ecosystem services (ES) delivery in quantity and quality are essential to improve human wellbeing. Nevertheless, often a considerable part of ES provisioning depends on the use of private land (e.g., flood retention, carbon sequestration, water purification). In this context, the operationalization and implementation of ES concept may collide with legal property rights. Therefore, it is essential to find constructive mechanisms to engage and encourage private owners to implement sustainable land uses to reduce the onsite and offsite impacts of their activities. This paper aims to identify if ES delivery can be constrained by legal private land and how it can be tackled. It is undeniable that land-use changes (e.g., urbanization, agriculture intensification, and land abandonment) affect the territory's capacity to deliver ES in quality and quantity. These changes, especially land abandonment, are increasing the tradeoffs among ES (e.g., between carbon sequestration and water yield). Land-use planning should consider these aspects. Therefore, incorporating ES into spatial plans is crucial for stakeholders to understand the impacts of land-use change in the loss of ES value. This information can be transmitted through maps that communicate the message in a simplified way. Private owners can easily perceive the ES relevance that their land can provide if an understandable message is delivered. Although this can be a good solution, conflicts can appear even with the implementation of schemes such as Payment for ES (PES). PES is not always effective and can impose losses to farmers, disregard their cultural traditions, or not prevent poverty alleviation. In this context, it is crucial to consider local specificities to safeguard PES's success, create a “win-win” and transform a problem into a solution. Private owners' active participation in implementing sustainable practices or a determined land-use in their properties is vital to achieving global targets such as sustainable development goals.

Keywords

Ecosystem services / Law / Private land / Sustainability / Land-use change

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

“Lithuanian National Ecosystem Services Assessment and Mapping (LINESAM)” (Grant No. 09.3.3-LMT-K-712-01-0104) is funded by the European Social Fund according to the activity “Improvement of researchers’ qualification by implementing world-class R&D projects” of Measure (Grant No. 09.3.3-LMT-K-712).

References

[1] Alston, L., Mueller, B., 2008. Property rights and the state. In: Ménard C., Shirley M. ( Handbook of New Institutional Economics.Eds.), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

[2] Banerjee, S., Cason, T., de Vries, F., Hanley, N., 2017. Transaction costs, communication and spatial coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 83, 68-89.

[3] Bartkowski, B., Hansjürgens, B., Möckel, S., Bartke, S., 2018. Institutional economics of agricultural soil ecosystem services. Sustainability 10 (7), 2447.

[4] Bellver-Domingo, A., Hernandez-Sancho, F., Molinos-Senante, M., 2016. A review of Payment for Ecosystem Services for the economic internalization of environmental externalities: A water perspective. Geoforum 115-118.

[5] BenDor, T., Spurlock, D., Woodruff, S., Olander, L., 2017. A research agenda for ecosystem services in American environmental and land Use planning. Cities 60, 260-271.

[6] Benjamin, E., Sauer, J., 2018. The cost effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services —Smallholders and agroforestry in Africa. Land Use Policy 71, 293-302.

[7] Bouwma, I., Schleyer, C., Primmer, E., Winkler, K., Berry, P., Young, J., Carmen, E., Spulerova, J., Bezak, P., Preda, E., Vadineanu, A., 2018. Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 213-222.

[8] Bremer, L., Brauman, K., Nelson, S., Prado, K., Willburn, E., Fiorini, A., 2018. Relational values in evaluations of upstream social outcomes of watershed Payment for Ecosystem Services: A review. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, 116-123.

[9] Brevik, E., Slaughter, L., Singh, B., Steffan, J., Collier, D., Barnhardt, P., Pereira, P, 2020. Soil and Human Health: Current Status and Future Needs. Air soil water res. 13.

[10] Brownson, K., Guinessey, E., Carranza, M., Esquivel, M., Hesselbach, H., Ramirez, L., Villa, L., 2019. Community-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services (CB-PES): Implications of community involvement for program outcomes. Ecosyst. Serv. 39, 100974.

[11] Brunet, L., Tuomisaari, J., Lavorel, S., Crouzat, E., Bierry, A., Pelolta, T., Arpin, I., 2018. Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational. Land Use Policy 72, 27-34.

[12] Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Muller, F, 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 21, 17-29.

[13] Cao, S., Wang, Y., Song, Y., Chen, L., Feng, Q., 2010. Impact of the natural forest conservation program on the livelihood of local residents in northwestern China. Ecol. Econ. 69 (7), 1454-1462.

[14] Carvalho, R., Szlafsztein, C., 2019. Urban vegetation loss and ecosystem services: The influence on climate regulation and noise and air pollution. Environ. Pollut. 245, 844-852.

[15] Cerra, J., 2017. Emerging strategies for voluntary urban ecological stewardship on private property. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 157, 586-597.

[16] Collentine, D., Futter, M., 2018. Realising the potential of natural water retention measures in catchment flood management: Tradeoffs and matching interests. J. Flood Risk Manag. 11 (1), 76-84.

[17] Comin, F., Miranda, B., Sorando, R., Felipe-Lucia, M., Jimenez, J., Navarro, E., 2018. Prioritizing sites for ecological restoration based on ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 55 (3), 1155-1163.

[18] Council of Europe, 1952. Protocol 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. European Treaty Series - No. 9.

[19] Daryanto, S., Wang, L., Fu, B., Zhao, W., Wang, S., 2019. Vegetation responses and tradeoffs with soil ‐related ecosystem services after shrub removal: A meta ‐analysis. Land Degrad. Develop. 30 (10), 1219-1228.

[20] Davies, H., Doick, K., Hudson, M., Schreckenberg, K., 2017. Challenges for tree officers to enhance the provision of regulating ecosystem services from urban forests. Environ. Res. 156, 97-107.

[21] Daw, T., Brown, K., Rosendo, S., Pomeroy, R., 2011. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: The need to disaggregate human wellbeing. Environ. Conserv. 38 (4), 370-379.

[22] Depellegrin, D., Pereira, P., Misiune, I., Egarter-Vigl, L., 2016. Mapping ecosystem services potential in Lithuania. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World 23 (5), 441-455.

[23] Di Marino, M., Tiitu, M., Lapintie, K., Viinikka, A., Kopperoinen, L., 2019. Integrating green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning. Results from two Finnish case studies. Land Use Policy 82, 643-656.

[24] Diswandi, D., 2017. A hybrid Coasean and Pigouvian approach to Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in West Lombok: Does it contribute to poverty alleviation? Ecosyst. Serv. 23, 138-145.

[25] Doygun, H., 2009. Effects of urban sprawl on agricultural land: A case study of Kahramanmara ş Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 158 (1-4), 471.

[26] Duro, J., Lauk, C., Kastner, T., Erb, K., Haberl, H., 2020. Global inequalities in food consumption, cropland demand and land-use efficiency: A decomposition analysis. Glob. Environ. Chang. 64, 102124.

[27] ECHR, 2020. Guide on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Protection of Property. Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights. ECHR, 2018. Case of G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and others v. Italy (merits) [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others. Council of Europe, Strabourg.

[28] ECHR, 2019. Svitlana Ilchenko v. Ukraine, no. 47166/09. Council of Europe, Strabourg.

[29] Evans, A., Mateo-Sagasta, J., Qadir, M., Boelee, E., Ippolito, A., 2019. Agricultural water pollution: Key knowledge gaps and research needs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 36, 20-27.

[30] Faber, J., Marshall, S., van der Brink, P., Maltby, L., 2019. Priorities and opportunities in the application of the ecosystem services concept in risk assessment for chemicals in the environment. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 1067-1077.

[31] Farley, J., Constanza, R., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecol. Econ. 69 (11), 2060-2068.

[32] Farley, K., Bremer, L., Harden, C., Hartsig, J., 2013. Changes in carbon storage under alternative land uses in biodiverse Andean grasslands: Implications for payment for ecosystem services. Conserv. Lett. 6 (1), 21-27.

[33] Fürst, C., Opdam, P., Imostroza, L., Luque, S., 2014. Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: Proposing a balanced score card. Landsc. Ecol. 29 (8), 1435-1446.

[34] Garcia-Baron, I., Cortes-Avizanda, A., Verburg, P., Marques, T., Moreno-Opo, R., Pereira, H., Donazar, J., 2017. How to fit the distribution of apex scavengers into land ‐abandonment scenarios? The Cinereous vulture in the Mediterranean biome. Divers. Distrib. 24 (7), 1018-1031.

[35] Ghazoul, J., Garcia, C., Kushalappa, C., 2009. Landscape labelling: A concept for next-generation payment for ecosystem service schemes. For. Ecol. Manage. 258 (9), 1889-1895.

[36] Grêt-Regamey, A., Sirén, E., Brunner, S., Weibel, B., 2017. Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept. Ecosyst. Serv. 26, 306-315.

[37] Gundimeda, H., Watzold, F., Forester, J., 2012. Payments for ecosystem services. In: Wittmer Gundimeda H. (Ed.), The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in local and regional policy and management. Earthscan, London.

[38] Guo, Y., Zheng, H., Wu, T., Robinson, B., 2020. A review of spatial targeting methods of payment for ecosystem services. Geogr. and Sustain. 1 (2), 132-140.

[39] Hana ček, K., Rodríguez-Labajos, B., 2018. Impacts of land-use and management changes on cultural agroecosystem services and environmental conflicts —A global review. Global Environ. Chang. 50, 41-59.

[40] Huang, L., Shao, Q., Liu, J., Lu, Q., 2018. Improving ecological conservation and restoration through payment for ecosystem services in Northeastern Tibetan Plateau, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 181-193.

[41] Inácio, M., Mikša, K., Kalinauskas, M., Pereira, P., 2020. Mapping wild seafood potential, supply, flow and demand in Lithuania. Sci. Total Environ. 718, 137356.

[42] Jain, N., Arora, P., Tomer, R., Vind Mishra, S., Bhatia, H., Chakraborty, D., Kumar, V., Dubey, D., Harit, R., Singh, J., 2016. Greenhouse gases emission from soils under major crops in Northwest India. Sci. Total Environ. 542, 551-561.

[43] Jax, K., Furman, E., Saarikoski, E., Barton, D., Delbaere, B., Dick, J., Duke, G., Gorg, C., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Harrison, P., Maes, J., Pérez-Soba, M., Saarela, S., Turkelboom, F., van Dijk, J., Watt, A., 2018. Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 415-427.

[44] Jim, C., Chen, E., 2009. Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities 26 (4), 187-194.

[45] Kaczorowska, A., Kain, J., Kronenberg, J., Haase, D., 2016. Ecosystem services in urban land use planning: Integration challenges in complex urban settings —Case of Stockholm. Ecosyst. Serv. 204-212.

[46] Kim, I., Arnhold, S., 2018. Mapping environmental land use conflict potentials and ecosystem services in agricultural watersheds. Sci. Total Environ. 630, 827-838.

[47] Lanz, B., Dietz, S., Swanson, T., 2018. The expansion of modern agriculture and global biodiversity decline: An integrated assessment. Ecol. Econ. 144, 260-277.

[48] Lee, H., Lautenbach, S., 2016. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 66, 340-351.

[49] Leviston, Z., Walker, I., Green, M., Price, J, 2018. Linkages between ecosystem services and human wellbeing: A Nexus Webs approach. Ecol. Indic. 93, 658-668.

[50] Li, B., Chen, D., Wu, S., Zhou, S., Wang, T., Chen, H., 2016. Spatio-temporal assessment of urbanization impacts on ecosystem services: Case study of Nanjing City, China. Ecol. Indic. 71, 416-427.

[51] Liang, J., Zhong, M., Zeng, G., Chen, G., Hua, S., Li, X., Yuan, Y., Wu, H., Gao, X., 2017. Risk management for optimal land use planning integrating ecosystem services values: A case study in Changsha, Middle China. Sci. Total Environ. 579, 1675-1682.

[52] Liu, X., Bakshi, B., Rugani, B., de Souza, D., Bare, J., Johnston, J., Laurent, A., Verones, F., 2020. Quantification and valuation of ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: Application of the cascade framework to rice farming systems. Sci. Total Environ. 141278.

[53] Maes, M., Jones, K., Toledano, M., Milligan, B., 2019. Mapping synergies and tradeoffs between urban ecosystems and the sustainable development goals. Environ. Sci. Policy 93, 181-188.

[54] Martinez-Sastre, R., Ravera, F., Gonzalez, J., Lopez-Santiago, C., Bidegain, I., Munda, G, 2017. Mediterranean landscapes under change: Combining social multicriteria evaluation and the ecosystem services framework for land use planning. Land Use Policy 67, 472-486.

[55] Matthies, B., Kalliokoski, T., Ekholm, T., Fredrik Hoen, H., Valsta, L., 2015. Risk, reward, and payments for ecosystem services: A portfolio approach to ecosystem services and forestland investment. Ecosyst. Serv. 16, 1-12.

[56] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.

[57] Moreno-de-las-Heras, M., Lindenberger, F., Latron, J., Lana-Renault, N., Llorens, P., Arnaez, J., Romero-Diaz, A., Gallart, F., 2019. Hydro-geomorphological consequences of the abandonment of agricultural terraces in the Mediterranean region: Key controlling factors and landscape stability patterns. Geomorphology 333, 73-91.

[58] Mukul, S., Sohel, Md., Shawkat, I., Herbohn, J., Inostroza, L., König, H., 2017. Integrating ecosystem services supply potential from future land-use scenarios in protected area management: A Bangladesh case study. Ecosyst. Serv. 26, 355-364.

[59] Novara, A., Gristina, L., Sala, A., Galati, A., Crescimanno, M., Cerda, A., Badalamenti, E., La Mantia, T., 2017. Agricultural land abandonment in Mediterranean environment provides ecosystem services via soil carbon sequestration. Sci. Total Environ. 576, 420-429.

[60] OAS, 1969. American convention on human rights. Inter American Commission on Human Rights, San José. Ojea, E., Martin-Ortega, J., Chiabai, A., 2012. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for economic valuation: the case of forest water services. Environ. Sci. Policy 19-20, 1-15.

[61] Oreoluwa, O., Menapace, L., Benjamin, E., Lang, H., 2019. Determinants of the environmental conservation and poverty alleviation objectives of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs. Ecosyst. Serv. 35, 52-66.

[62] O’Sullivan, O., Holt, A., Warren, P., Evans, K., 2017. Optimising UK urban road verge contributions to biodiversity and ecosystem services with cost-effective management. J. Environ. Manage. 191, 162-171.

[63] Ovando, P., Bergueria, S., Campos, P., 2019. Carbon sequestration or water yield? The effect of payments for ecosystem services on forest management decisions in Mediterranean forests. Water Resour. Econ. 28, 100119.

[64] Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A., Platais, G., 2005. Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev. 33 (2), 237-253.

[65] Pardo, I., Garcia, L., 2016. Water abstraction in small lowland streams: Unforeseen hypoxia and anoxia effects. Sci. Total Environ. 568, 226-235.

[66] Pereira, P., 2020. Ecosystem services in a changing environment. Sci. Total Environ. 702, 135008.

[67] Pereira, P., Barcelo, D., Panagos, P., 2020. Soil and water threats in a changing environment. Environ. Res. 186, 109501.

[68] Pereira, P., Bogunovic, I., Muñoz-Rojas, M., Brevik, E., 2018. Soil ecosystem services, sustainability, valuation and management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 5, 7-13.

[69] Pereira, P., Brevik, E., Trevisani, S., 2018. Mapping the Environment. Sci. Total Environ. 610-611, 17-23.

[70] Perez, E., Garcia, P., 2016. Monitoring soil sealing in Guadarrama River Basin, Spain, and its potential impact in agricultural areas. Agriculture 6 (1), 7.

[71] Pinke, Z., Kiss, M., Lovei, G., 2018. Developing an integrated land use planning system on reclaimed wetlands of the Hungarian Plain using economic valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 30 (SI), 299-308.

[72] Piwowarczyk, J., Kronenberg, J., Dereniowska, M., 2013. Marine ecosystem services in urban areas: Do the strategic documents of Polish coastal municipalities reflect their importance? Landsc. Urban Plan. 109 (1), 85-93.

[73] Quintas-Soriano, C., Castro, A., Castro, H., García-Llorente, M., 2016. Impacts of land use change on ecosystem services and implications for human wellbeing in Spanish drylands. Land Use Policy 54, 534-548.

[74] Redford, K., Adams, W., 2009. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenging of saving nature. Conserv. Biol. 23 (4), 785-787.

[75] Ren, L., Li, J., Li, C., Li, S., Daily, G., 2018. Does Poverty Matter in Payment for Ecosystem Services Program? Participation in the New Stage Sloping Land Conversion Program. Sustainability 10 (6), 1888.

[76] Rickenbach, M., Schulte, L., Kittredge, D., Labich, W., Shinneman, D., 2011. Cross-boundary cooperation: A mechanism for sustaining ecosystem services from private lands. J. Soil Water Conserv. 66 (4), 91A-96A.

[77] Rimal, B., Zhang, L., Stork, N., Sloan, S., Rijal, S., 2018. Urban Expansion Occurred at the Expense of Agricultural Lands in the Tarai Region of Nepal from 1989 to 2016. Sustainability 10 (5), 1341.

[78] Robinson, C., James, G., Whitehead, P., 2016. Negotiating Indigenous benefits from payment for ecosystem service (PES) schemes. Glob. Environ. Change. 38, 21-29.

[79] Rosa, J., Sanchez, L., 2016. Advances and challenges of incorporating ecosystem services into impact assessment. J. Emviron. Manage. 180, 485-492.

[80] Rozas-Vasquez, D., Furst, C., Geneletti, D., 2019. Integrating ecosystem services in spatial planning and strategic environmental assessment: The role of the cascade model. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 78, 106291.

[81] Salata, S., Giaimo, C., Barbieri, C., Garnero, G., 2020. The utilization of ecosystem services mapping in land use planning: The experience of LIFE SAM4CP project. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 63, 523-545.

[82] Sandhu, H., Clarke, B., Baring, R., Anderson, S., Fisk, C., Dittmann, S., Walker, S., Sutton, P., Kubiszewski, I., Constanza, R., 2018. Scenario planning including ecosystem services for a coastal region in South Australia. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 194-207.

[83] SEJM, 1997. The constitution of the Republic of Poland. Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland 78 ( 483).

[84] Shalaby, A., Moghanm, F., 2015. Assessment of urban sprawl on agricultural soil of Northern Nile Delta of Egypt using RS and GIS. Chin. Geogra. Sci. 25 (2), 274-282.

[85] Schetke, S., Lee, H., Graf, W., Lautenbach, S., 2018. Application of the ecosystem service concept for climate protection in Germany. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 294-305.

[86] Schleyer, C., Lux, A., Mehering, M., Gorg, C., 2017. Ecosystem services as a boundary concept: Arguments from social ecology. Sustainability 9 (7), 1107.

[87] Schmalz, B., Kruse, M., Kiesel, J., Muller, F., Fohrer, N., 2016. Water-related ecosystem services in Western Siberian lowland basins —Analysing and mapping spatial and seasonal effects on regulating services based on ecohydrological modelling results. Ecol. Indic. 71, 55-65.

[88] Schroter, M., van der Zanten, E., van Oudenhoven, A., Remme, R., Serna-Chavez, H., de Groot, R., Opdam, P., 2014. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conserv. Lett. 7 (6), 514-523.

[89] Shamshad, A., 2012. Linking Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services to Economic and Human Activity. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (accessed 15 August 2020).

[90] Sil, A., Rodrigues, A., Carvalho-Santos, C., Nunes, J., Honrado, J., Alonso, J., Marta-Pedroso, C., Azevedo, J., 2016. Trade-offs and synergies between provisioning and regulating ecosystem services in a mountain area in Portugal affected by landscape change. Mt. Res. Dev. 36 (4), 452-464.

[91] Silverton, J., 2015. Have ecosystem services been oversold? Trends Ecol. Evol. 30 (11), 641-648.

[92] Sone, J., Gesualdo, G., Zamboni, P., Vieira, N., Mattos, T., Carvalho, G., Rodrigues, D., Sobrinho, T., Oliveira, P., 2019. Water provisioning improvement through payment for ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 655, 1197-1206.

[93] Sorando, R., Comin, F., Jimenez, J., Sanchez-Perez, J., Sauvage, S., 2019. Water resources and nitrate discharges in relation to agricultural land uses in an intensively irrigated watershed. Sci. Total Environ. 659, 1293-1306.

[94] Sumarga, E., Hein, L., 2014. Mapping ecosystem services for land use planning, the case of Central Kalimantan. Environ. Manage. 54 (1), 84-97.

[95] Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania, 1992. Lithuanian Constitution. Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania, Vilnius.

[96] Tam, S., Conway, T., 2018. Ecosystem services in urban land use planning policies: A case study of Ontario municipalities. Land Use Policy 77, 641-651.

[97] Tang, Q., Bennett, S., Xu, Y., Li, Y, 2013. Agricultural practices and sustainable livelihoods: Rural transformation within the Loess Plateau, China. Appl. Geogr. 41, 15-23.

[98] Tarlock, D., Albercht, J., 2018. Potential constitutional constrains on the regulation of floodplain development. J. Flood Risk Manage. 11, 48-55.

[99] Temel, J., Jones, A., Jones, N., Balint, L., 2018. Limits of monetization in protecting ecosystem services. Conserv. Biol. 32, 1048-1062.

[100] UN, Decade,2019. United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030). UNEP, UNFAO https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/ (accessed in 18 August 2020).

[101] UNEP,2019. Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented ”; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating ”. https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/natures-dangerous-decline-unprecedented-species-extinction-rates (accessed 18 August 2020).

[102] Vahmani, P., Sun, F., Hall, A., Ban-Weiss, G., 2016. Investigating the climate impacts of urbanization and the potential for cool roofs to counter future climate change in Southern California. Environ. Res. Lett. 11 (12), 124027.

[103] Van der Zanten, E., Verburg, P., Schulp, C., Johannes, Verkerk, P., 2017. Trade-offs of European agricultural abandonment. Land Use Policy 62, 290-301.

[104] Vedel, S., Jacobsen, J., Jellesmark Thorsen, B., 2015. Forest owners’ willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality. Ecol. Econ. 113, 15-24.

[105] Vongvisouk, T., Brandt Broegaard, R., Mertz, O., Thongmanivong, S., 2016. Rush for cash crops and forest protection: Neither land sparing nor land sharing. Land Use Policy 55, 182-192.

[106] Wam, H., Bunnefeld, N., Clarke, N., Holfstad, O., 2016. Conflicting interests of ecosystem services: Multi-criteria modelling and indirect evaluation of tradeoffs between monetary and non-monetary measures. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 280-288.

[107] Wang, C., Pang, W., Hong, J., 2017. Impact of a regional payment for ecosystem service program on the livelihoods of different rural households. J. Clean. Prod. 164, 1058-1067.

[108] Wang, P., Poe, G., Wolf, S., 2017. Payments for ecosystem services and wealth distribution. Ecol. Econ. 132, 63-68.

[109] Wang, P., Wolf, S., 2019. A targeted approach to payments for ecosystem services. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 17, e00577.

[110] Weitzman, J., 2019. Applying the ecosystem services concept to aquaculture: A review of approaches, definitions, and uses. Ecosyst. Serv. 35, 194-206.

[111] Wood, S., Jones, S., Johnson, J., Brauman, K., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Fremier, A., Girvetz, E., Gordon, L., Kappel, C., Mandle, L., Mulligan, M., O’Farrell, P., Smith, W., Willemn, L., Zhang, W., DeClerck, F., 2018. Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals. Ecosyst. 29, 70-82.

[112] Xue, F., Tang, J., Dong, Z., Shen, D., Liu, H., Zhang, X., Holden, N., 2018. Tempo-spatial controls of total coliform and E. coli contamination in a subtropical hilly agricultural catchment. Agric. Water Manag. 200, 10-18.

[113] Yang, S., Zhao, W., Pereira, P., Liu, Y., 2019. Socio-cultural valuation of rural and urban perception on ecosystem services and human wellbeing in Yanhe watershed of China. J. Environ. Manage. 251, 109615.

[114] Yu, Y., Zhao, W., Martinez-Murillo, J., Pereira, P., 2020. Loess Plateau: From degradation to restoration. Sci. Total. Environ. 738, 140206.