Coupling trade-offs and supply-demand of ecosystem services (ES): A new opportunity for ES management^☆

Abstract

The trade-offs and supply-demand relations of ecosystem services (ES) are at the frontier of geographical and ecological studies. However, previous studies have focused on either trade-offs or the supply-demand aspects, while ES conflicts and supply/demand contradictions have not been comprehensively examined. The relationship between ES trade-offs and supply-demand is logically valid and studying the coupling of both can provide approaches for simultaneously alleviating ES conflicts and supply-demand contradictions. This study, based on a review of previous analyses of ES trade-offs and supply-demand dynamics, proposes a new analytic framework to couple them. First, we define two types of trade-offs based on the directions of growth or decline of the two services. We also define the supply-demand balance area and the supply-demand risk area according to the ES flow characteristics. Second, the mechanisms driving ES trade-offs are clarified, and land-use scenarios are set based on the mechanisms. Third, the supply-demand spatial characteristics of ES are analyzed, and supply-demand risk areas are identified. Finally, scenario iterations are performed to minimize the supply-demand risk area at an acceptable trade-off intensity to identify an optimal land use plan, which simultaneously alleviates ES conflicts and supply-demand contradictions. This analytic framework offers new opportunities for improving sustainable ecosystem management.

Keywords

Environmental management / Service conflicts / Supply-demand contradictions / Coupling analysis

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.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41861134038, 41771197), Norwegian Research Council (Grant No. 286773), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, and Fundamental Research Program of Shanxi Province (Grant No. 20210302123481).

References

[1] Anna, F.C., Bartosz, B., Michael, B., Andreas, D., Kathleen, H.N., Andrea, K., Nele, L., Karla, L.K., 2017. Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 264-272.

[2] Bagstad, K.J., Johnson, G.W., Voigt, B., Villa, F., 2013. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst. Serv. 4, 117-125.

[3] Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J., 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 12 (12), 1394.

[4] Biel, R.G., Hacker, S.D., Ruggiero, P., Cohn, N., 2017. Coastal protection and conservation on sandy beaches and dunes: Context-dependent tradeoffs in ecosystem service supply. Ecosphere 8 (4), 1-19.

[5] Bing, Z.H, Qiu, Y.S, Huang, H.P, Chen, T.Z., Zhong, W., Jiang, Hong., 2021. Spatial distribution of cultural ecosystem services demand and supply in urban and suburban areas: A case study from Shanghai, China. Ecol. Indic. 127, 107720.

[6] Bradford, J.B., D’Amato, A.W, 2011. Recognizing trade-offs in multi-objective land management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 210-216.

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

[8] Chen, D.S., Li, J., Yang, X.N., Zhou, Z.X., Pan, Y., Li, M., 2020. Quantifying water provision service supply, demand and spatial flow for land use optimization: A case study in the YanHe watershed. Ecosyst. Serv. 43, 101117.

[9] Costanza, R., 2008. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biol. Conserv. 141, 350-352.

[10] Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., Groot, R.D., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1, 253-260.

[11] Dade, M.C., Mitchell, M.G.E., Mcalpine, C.A., Rhodes, J.R., 2019. Assessing ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: The need for a more mechanistic approach. Ambio 48, 1116-1128.

[12] Feng, Q., Zhao, W.W., Fu, B.J., Ding, J.Y., Wang, S., 2017. Ecosystem service trade-offs and their influencing factors: A case study in the Loess Plateau of China. Sci. Total. Environ. 607-608, 1250-1263.

[13] Feng, Q., Zhao, W.W., Hu, X.P., Liu, Y., Daryanto, S., Cherubini, F., 2020. Trading-offecosystem services for better ecological restoration: A case study in the Loess Plateau of China. J. Clean. Prod. 257, 120469.

[14] Fisher, B., Turnera, R., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68 (3), 643-653.

[15] Forio, M., Villa-Cox, G., Echelpoel, W.V., Ryckebusch, H., Lock, K., Spanoghe, P., Deknock, A., 2020. Bayesian Belief Network models as trade-offtools of ecosystem services in the Guayas River Basin in Ecuador. Ecosyst. Serv. 44, 101124.

[16] Haase, D., Schwarz, N., Strohbach, M., Kroll, F., Seppelt, R., 2012. Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: An integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle region Germany. Ecol. Soc. 17, 22.

[17] Inácio, M., Karnauskaite, D., Baltrenaite, E., Kalinauskas, M., Bogdzevič, K., Gomes, E., Pereira, P., 2020. Ecosystem services of the baltic sea: An assessment and mapping perspective. Geogr. Sustain. 1, 256-265.

[18] Kanter, D.R., Musumba, M., Wood, S., Palm, C., Antle, J., Balvanera, P., Dale, V., Havlik, P., Kline, K.L., Scholes, R.J., Thornton, P., Tittonell, P., Andelman, S., 2018. Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agric. Syst. 163, 73-88.

[19] Kathleen, C.S., Richard, S.Q., Nils, B., Oliver, D.M., 2019. Quantifying stakeholder understanding of an ecosystem service trade-off. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 2524-2534.

[20] King, E., Cavender-Bares, J., Balvanera, P., Mwampamba, T.H., Polasky, S., 2015. Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: Evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities. Ecol. Soc. 20, 25.

[21] Koellner, T., Bonn, A., Arnhold, S., Kenneth, J., Bagstad, D.F., Carlos, A.G., Thomas, K., Meidad, K., Janina, K., Christian, K., Liu, J., López-Hoffman, L., Marques, A., Martín-López, B., Catharina, J.E., Schulp, S.W., Matthias, S., 2019. Guidance for assessing interregional ecosystem service flows. Ecol. Indic. 105, 92-106.

[22] Laca, E.A., 2021. Multi-scape interventions to match spatial scales of demand and supply of ecosystem services. Front. Sustain. Food. Syst. 4, 607276.

[23] Li, B., Chen, N., Wang, Y., Wang, W., 2018. Spatio-temporal quantification of the trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services based on grid-cells: A case study of Guanzhong Basin, NW China. Ecol. Indic. 94, 246-253.

[24] Li, D.L., Wu, S.Y., Liu, L.B., Liang, Z., Li, S.C., 2017. Evaluating regional water security through a freshwater ecosystem service flow model: A case study in Beijing-Tianjian-Hebei region, China. Ecol. Indic. 81, 159-170.

[25] Li, X., Sun, W., Zhang, D., Huang, J.L., Li, D.H., Ding, N., Zhu, J.F., Xie, Y.J., Wang, X.R., 2021. Evaluating water provision service at the sub-watershed scale by combining supply, demand, and spatial flow. Ecol. Indic. 127, 107745.

[26] Li, X., Yu, X., Wu, K.N., Feng, Z., Liu, Y., Li, X., 2020. Land-use zoning management to protecting the regional key ecosystem services: A case study in the city belt along the Chaobai River, China. Sci. Total. Environ. 762, 143167.

[27] Lin, J.Y., Huang, J.L., Prell, C., Bryan, B.A., 2020. Changes in supply and demand mediate the effects of land-use change on freshwater ecosystem services flows. Sci. Total. Environ. 763, 143012.

[28] MA Millennium, Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:Synthesis. Island Press, Washington D. C.

[29] Miguel, I., Mika, K., Kalinauskas, M., Paulo, P., 2020. Mapping wild seafood potential, supply, flow and demand in Lithuania. Sci. Total Environ. 718, 137356.

[30] Ndong, G.O., Villerd, J., Cousin, I., Theron, O., 2020. Using a multivariate regression tree to analyze trade-offs between ecosystem services: Application to the main cropping area in France. Sci. Total Environ. 764, 142815.

[31] Rodriguez, J.P., Beard, T.D., Bennett, E.M., Cumming, G.S., Cork, S.J., Agard, J., Dobson, A.P., Peterson, G.D., 2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 11, 709-723.

[32] Schirpke, U., Sebastian, C., Lukas, E.V., Hieronymus, J., Alice, L., Thomas, M., Claude, M., Erich, T., Ulrike, T., 2019. Integrating supply, flow and demand to enhance the understanding of interactions among ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 928-941.

[33] Schröter, M., Koellner, T., Alkemade, R., Arnhold, S., Bagstad, K.J., Frank, K., Kastner, T., Kissinger, M., 2018. Interregional flows of ecosystem services: Concepts, typology and four cases. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 231-241.

[34] Shi, Y.S., Shi, D.H., Zhou, L.L., Fang, R., 2020. Identification of ecosystem services supply and demand areas and simulation of ecosystem service flows in Shanghai. Ecol. Indic. 115, 106418.

[35] Su, B.Q., Su, Z.X., Shangguan, Z.P, 2021. Trade-offanalyses of plant biomass and soil moisture relations on the Loess Plateau. Catena 197, 104946.

[36] Sun, X.Y., Shan, R.F., Liu, F., 2020. Spatio-temporal quantification of patterns, trade-offs and synergies among multiple hydrological ecosystem services in different topographic basins. J. Clean. Prod. 268, 122338.

[37] Tao, Y., Wang, H.N., Ou, W.X., Guo, J., 2018. A land-cover-based approach to assessing ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics in the rapidly urbanizing Yangtze River Delta region. Land Use Policy 72, 250-258.

[38] Wang, C., Wang, S., Fu, B.J., Li, Z.S., Wu, X., Tang, Q., 2017. Precipitation gradient determines the tradeoffbetween soil moisture and soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, and species richness in the Loess Plateau, China. Sci. Total. Environ. 575, 1538-1545.

[39] Wang, L.J., Zheng, H., Wen, Z., Liu, L., Robinson, B.E., Li, R., Li, C., Kong, L., 2019. Ecosystem service synergies/trade-offs informing the supply-demand match of ecosystem services: Framework and application. Ecosyst. Serv. 37, 100939.

[40] Wei, H.J., Fan, W.G., Wang, X.C., Lu, N.C., Dong, X.B., Zhao, Y.N., Ya, X.J., Zhao, Y., 2017. Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: A review. Ecosyst. Serv. 25, 15-27.

[41] Wolff, S., Schulp, C.J.E., Verburg, P.H., 2015. Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 55, 159-171.

[42] Xu, J., Xiao, Y., Xie, G., Wang, Y., Zhen, L., Zhang, C., Jiang, Y., 2020. Interregional ecosystem services benefits transfer from wind erosion control measures in Inner Mongolia. Environ. Dev. 34, 100496.

[43] Yang, S.Q., Zhao, W.W., Liu, Y.X., Cherubini, F., Fu, B.J., Pereira, P., 2020. Prioritizing sustainable development goals and linking them to ecosystem services: A global expert’s knowledge evaluation. Geogr. Sustain. 1, 321-330.

[44] Yin, C.C., Zhao, W.W., Cherubini, F., Pereira, P., 2021. Integrate ecosystem services in socio-economic development to enhance achievement of sustainable development goals in the post-pandemic era. Geogr. Sustain. 2, 68-73.

[45] Zhang, C., Li, J., Zhou, Z.X., Sun, Y.J., 2021. Application of ecosystem service flows model in water security assessment: A case study in Weihe River Basin, China. Ecol. Indic. 120, 106974.

[46] Zheng, H., Wang, L.J., Wu, T., 2019. Coordinating ecosystem service trade-offs to achieve win-win outcomes: A review of the approaches. J. Environ. Sci. 82, 103-112.