IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i9p1371-d1465099.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Trade-Offs and Synergies in Social–Ecological System Services across Ecological Engineering Impact Regions: Insights from South China Karst

Author

Listed:
  • Lu Luo

    (School of Karst Science, Engineering Laboratory for Karst Desertification Control and Eco-Industry of Guizhou Province, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550001, China
    International School, Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, Guiyang 550025, China)

  • Kangning Xiong

    (School of Karst Science, Engineering Laboratory for Karst Desertification Control and Eco-Industry of Guizhou Province, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550001, China)

  • Yi Chen

    (School of Karst Science, Engineering Laboratory for Karst Desertification Control and Eco-Industry of Guizhou Province, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550001, China)

  • Wenfang Zhang

    (School of Karst Science, Engineering Laboratory for Karst Desertification Control and Eco-Industry of Guizhou Province, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550001, China)

  • Yongyao Li

    (School of Karst Science, Engineering Laboratory for Karst Desertification Control and Eco-Industry of Guizhou Province, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550001, China
    Bijie Institute of Science and Technology Information Research, Science and Technology Bureau of Bijie, Bijie 551700, China)

  • Dezhi Wang

    (Key Laboratory of Aquatic Botany and Watershed Ecology, Wuhan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430074, China)

Abstract

Karst ecosystems have become complex social–ecological systems (SESs) as a result of the interventions of large-scale ecological restoration programs, and the ecosystem services (ESs) that provide regional well-being can, to some extent, be described as social–ecological system services (S–ESs). Understanding the relationships among multiple S–ESs and exploring their drivers are essential for effective ecological management in karst areas, especially in regions differently affected by ecological engineering programs. Taking South China Karst (SCK) as a study area, we first identified two regions as comparative boundaries, namely significant engineering impact regions (SEERs) and non-significant ecological engineering impact regions (NEERs). Then we used ES assessment models, Spearman correlation, and optimal parameter geographic detector to identify the supply capacity, trade-offs/synergies, and their drivers of six types of S–ESs in SEERs and NEERs. The findings included: (1) SEERs were predominantly concentrated in the central and southern SCK regions, accounting for 33.98% of the total SCK area, with the most concentrated distribution observed in Guizhou and Guangxi. (2) Within the entire SCK, six S–ESs maintained a relatively stable spatial distribution pattern over time, with the most pronounced increase in soil conservation and a slight decrease in water retention, and the S–ES hotspots were more concentrated within the SEERs. (3) Most S–ES pairs within SEERs were optimized synergistically, with lower trade-off intensity and higher synergy intensity compared to NEERs. (4) S–ES pairs were affected by the interactions between the natural and socio-economic factors, with land use changes playing a crucial role, and natural factors were difficult to predict but cannot be ignored. Based on the results, we propose different SES sustainable development suggestions, with a view to providing theoretical support for the optimization of SES functions and the consolidating of integrated ecological construction.

Suggested Citation

  • Lu Luo & Kangning Xiong & Yi Chen & Wenfang Zhang & Yongyao Li & Dezhi Wang, 2024. "Exploring Trade-Offs and Synergies in Social–Ecological System Services across Ecological Engineering Impact Regions: Insights from South China Karst," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-26, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:9:p:1371-:d:1465099
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/9/1371/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/9/1371/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Orsi, Francesco & Ciolli, Marco & Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Geneletti, Davide, 2020. "Mapping hotspots and bundles of forest ecosystem services across the European Union," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Tammi, Ilpo & Mustajärvi, Kaisa & Rasinmäki, Jussi, 2017. "Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 329-344.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xuanmiao Peng & Xiaoai Dai & Ryan Shi & Yujian Zheng & Xinyue Liu & Yuhe Xiao & Weile Li & Yang Zhang & Jue Wang & Huan Huang, 2024. "Investigating the Effects of Mining on Ecosystem Services in Panzhihua City: A Multi-Scenario Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-25, June.
    2. Guillermo Martínez Pastur & Marie-Claire Aravena Acuña & Jimena E. Chaves & Juan M. Cellini & Eduarda M. O. Silveira & Julián Rodriguez-Souilla & Axel von Müller & Ludmila La Manna & María V. Lencinas, 2023. "Nitrogenous and Phosphorus Soil Contents in Tierra del Fuego Forests: Relationships with Soil Organic Carbon, Climate, Vegetation and Landscape Metrics," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Bernués, Alberto & Alfnes, Frode & Clemetsen, Morten & Eik, Lars Olav & Faccioni, Georgia & Ramanzin, Maurizio & Ripoll-Bosch, Raimon & Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara & Sturaro, Enrico, 2019. "Exploring social preferences for ecosystem services of multifunctional agriculture across policy scenarios," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    4. Bottaro, Giorgia & Liagre, Ludwig & Pettenella, Davide, 2024. "The Forest Sector in EU Member States' National Recovery and Resilience Plans: a preliminary analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    5. Qiurong Xu & Ruipeng Li & Jia Yu & Pei Zhang, 2023. "Synergies and Trade-Offs among Different Ecosystem Services through the Analyses of Spatio-Temporal Changes in Beijing, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-13, May.
    6. Gimona, Alessandro & McKeen, Margaret & Baggio, Andrea & Simonetti, Enrico & Poggio, Laura & Pakeman, Robin J., 2023. "Complementary effects of biodiversity and ecosystem services on spatial targeting for agri-environment payments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    7. Kai Li & Ying Hou & Ruhong Xin & Yuejing Rong & Xiang Pan & Zihan Gao & Ting Wang & Bingyang Lyu & Baimeng Guo & Haocheng Wang & Xi Li, 2024. "Integrating Ecosystem Services and Health into Landscape Functional Zoning: A Case Study of the Jinan Southern Mountainous Area, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    8. Klimanova, O.A. & Bukvareva, E.N. & Yu, Kolbowsky E. & Illarionova, O.A., 2023. "Assessing ecosystem services in Russia: Case studies from four municipal districts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    9. Gintarė Sujetovienė & Giedrius Dabašinskas, 2023. "Ecosystem Service Value Changes in Response to Land Use Dynamics in Lithuania," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, December.
    10. Yisong Wang & Jincheng Huang & Shiming Fang, 2019. "Sustainability Assessment of Natural Capital Based on the 3D Ecological Footprint Model: A Case Study of the Shennongjia National Park Pilot," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, February.
    11. Liang, Xinyuan & Jin, Xiaobin & He, Jie & Wang, Xiaorui & Xu, Cuilan & Qiao, Guoliang & Zhang, Xiaolin & Zhou, Yinkang, 2022. "Impacts of land management practice strategy on regional ecosystems: Enlightenment from ecological redline adjustment in Jiangsu, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    12. Yuta Uchiyama & Ryo Kohsaka, 2022. "Visiting Peri-Urban Forestlands and Mountains during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Empirical Analysis on Effects of Land Use and Awareness of Visitors," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, July.
    13. Zapata-Caldas, Emmanuel & Calcagni, Fulvia & Baró, Francesc & Langemeyer, Johannes, 2022. "Using crowdsourced imagery to assess cultural ecosystem services in data-scarce urban contexts: The case of the metropolitan area of Cali, Colombia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    14. Linrun Qiu & Yuxiang Dong & Hai Liu, 2022. "Integrating Ecosystem Services into Planning Practice: Situation, Challenges and Inspirations," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    15. Heejeong Yun & Dongjin Kang & Youngeun Kang, 2022. "Outdoor recreation planning and management considering FROS and carrying capacities: a case study of forest wetland in Yeongam-gum, South Korea," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 502-526, January.
    16. Stamatiadou, Valentini & Mazaris, Antonios & Mallios, Zisis & Katsanevakis, Stelios, 2023. "Valuation and mapping of the recreational diving ecosystem service of the Aegean Sea," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    17. Angela Heymans & Jessica Breadsell & Gregory M. Morrison & Joshua J. Byrne & Christine Eon, 2019. "Ecological Urban Planning and Design: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-20, July.
    18. Yue Wang & Qi Fu & Tinghui Wang & Mengfan Gao & Jinhua Chen, 2022. "Multiscale Characteristics and Drivers of the Bundles of Ecosystem Service Budgets in the Su-Xi-Chang Region, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-26, October.
    19. Roxanne Suzette Lorilla & Konstantinos Poirazidis & Stamatis Kalogirou & Vassilis Detsis & Aristotelis Martinis, 2018. "Assessment of the Spatial Dynamics and Interactions among Multiple Ecosystem Services to Promote Effective Policy Making across Mediterranean Island Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-28, September.
    20. Patrycia Brzoska & Aiga Spāģe, 2020. "From City- to Site-Dimension: Assessing the Urban Ecosystem Services of Different Types of Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:9:p:1371-:d:1465099. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.