IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v14y2025i3p644-d1614999.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When to Use What: A Comparison of Three Approaches to Quantify Relationships Among Ecosystem Services

Author

Listed:
  • Zhen Zhong

    (School of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234, China
    Co-first author of this work.)

  • Bochuan Zhou

    (School of Finance and Business, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234, China
    Co-first author of this work.)

  • Lingqiang Kong

    (School of Public Administration, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Xuening Fang

    (School of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234, China
    Yangtze River Delta Urban Wetland Ecosystem National Field Scientific Observation and Research Station, Shanghai 200234, China)

Abstract

Sustainable landscape management requires accurately identifying the trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services (ES). Three commonly utilized approaches to quantify ES trade-off/synergy relationships include the space-for-time approach, landscape background-adjusted space-for-time approach, and temporal trend approach. However, the similarities and differences among these three approaches in identifying ES relationships in the same area remain unclear. Thus, we conducted a case study in the rapidly urbanizing Yangtze River Delta region, comparing the three approaches based on annual data spanning from 2001 to 2020 for 12 types of ES. We found that: (1) the ES trade-off/synergy relationships detected by the three approaches exhibit significant divergence, with only 1.45% consistency among the 66 pairs of ES relationships. (2) All three approaches can overlook ES trade-offs, miss ES synergies, and erroneously detect interactions where none exist. (3) The mechanisms contributing to the misidentification of ES relationships by the three approaches include: neglecting the underlying assumptions of different approaches, insufficient time interval length, short time series of ES data, data aggregation effects, non-linear changes in ESs, time lag effects of ES relationships, among others. Our results indicate that each of the three approaches has its own advantages and disadvantages in identifying ES relationships. Prior to selecting an approach for identifying relationships between ESs in a specific study area, careful consideration of the availability of time series data, the characteristics of the chosen ES type, and thorough examination of the underlying assumptions and uncertainties of each approach are imperative.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhen Zhong & Bochuan Zhou & Lingqiang Kong & Xuening Fang, 2025. "When to Use What: A Comparison of Three Approaches to Quantify Relationships Among Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:3:p:644-:d:1614999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/3/644/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/3/644/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. CAO, Yu & Cao, Yu & Li, Guoyu & Tian, Yuhan & Fang, Xiaoqian & Li, Yan & Tan, Yongzhong, 2020. "Linking ecosystem services trade-offs, bundles and hotspot identification with cropland management in the coastal Hangzhou Bay area of China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    3. Fang, Xuening & Ma, Qun & Liu, Zhifeng & Wu, Jianguo, 2024. "Landscape sustainability and land sustainability: A bibliometric analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    4. Wu, Ye & Tao, Yu & Yang, Guishan & Ou, Weixin & Pueppke, Steven & Sun, Xiao & Chen, Gongtai & Tao, Qin, 2019. "Impact of land use change on multiple ecosystem services in the rapidly urbanizing Kunshan City of China: Past trajectories and future projections," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 419-427.
    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. Peng Tian & Jialin Li & Luodan Cao & Ruiliang Pu & Hongbo Gong & Haitao Zhang & Huilin Chen & Xiaodong Yang, 2021. "Assessing Matching Characteristics and Spatial Differences between Supply and Demand of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study in Hangzhou, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Remme, Roy P. & Meacham, Megan & Pellowe, Kara E. & Andersson, Erik & Guerry, Anne D. & Janke, Benjamin & Liu, Lingling & Lonsdorf, Eric & Li, Meng & Mao, Yuanyuan & Nootenboom, Christopher & Wu, Tong, 2024. "Aligning nature-based solutions with ecosystem services in the urban century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    3. Shuting Bai & Jiuchun Yang & Yubo Zhang & Fengqin Yan & Lingxue Yu & Shuwen Zhang, 2022. "Evaluating Ecosystem Services and Trade-Offs Based on Land-Use Simulation: A Case Study in the Farming–Pastoral Ecotone of Northern China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Fatemeh Mohammadyari & Ardavan Zarandian & Mir Mehrdad Mirsanjari & Jurate Suziedelyte Visockiene & Egle Tumeliene, 2023. "Modelling Impact of Urban Expansion on Ecosystem Services: A Scenario-Based Approach in a Mixed Natural/Urbanised Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Jingheng Wang & Meichen Fu & Xiangxue Han & Yuting Wu & Hongyan Wen, 2025. "Research on Human Needs and the Valorization of Supply–Need Relationships in Ecosystem Services—A Case Study of the Southwest Karst Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-28, March.
    6. Cattaneo, Andrea & Adukia, Anjali & Brown, David L. & Christiaensen, Luc & Evans, David K. & Haakenstad, Annie & McMenomy, Theresa & Partridge, Mark & Vaz, Sara & Weiss, Daniel J., 2022. "Economic and social development along the urban–rural continuum: New opportunities to inform policy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    7. Giedrius Dabašinskas & Gintarė Sujetovienė, 2024. "Spatial and Temporal Changes in Supply and Demand for Ecosystem Services in Response to Urbanization: A Case Study in Vilnius, Lithuania," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, April.
    8. Carolina Yacamán Ochoa & Daniel Ferrer Jiménez & Rafael Mata Olmo, 2020. "Green Infrastructure Planning in Metropolitan Regions to Improve the Connectivity of Agricultural Landscapes and Food Security," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-23, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Josias Sanou & Anna Tengberg & Hugues Roméo Bazié & David Mingasson & Madelene Ostwald, 2023. "Assessing Trade-Offs between Agricultural Productivity and Ecosystem Functions: A Review of Science-Based Tools?," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, June.
    11. Tianlin Zhai & Jing Wang & Ying Fang & Longyang Huang & Jingjing Liu & Chenchen Zhao, 2021. "Integrating Ecosystem Services Supply, Demand and Flow in Ecological Compensation: A Case Study of Carbon Sequestration Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    12. Wei Guo & Yongjia Teng & Yueguan Yan & Chuanwu Zhao & Wanqiu Zhang & Xianglin Ji, 2022. "Simulation of Land Use and Carbon Storage Evolution in Multi-Scenario: A Case Study in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-19, October.
    13. Liu, Hongxiao & Hamel, Perrine & Tardieu, Léa & Remme, Roy P. & Han, Baolong & Ren, Hai, 2022. "A geospatial model of nature-based recreation for urban planning: Case study of Paris, France," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    14. González-García, Alberto & Arias, Marina & García-Tiscar, Susana & Alcorlo, Paloma & Santos-Martín, Fernando, 2022. "National blue carbon assessment in Spain using InVEST: Current state and future perspectives," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    15. Mingxin Wen & Ting Zhang & Long Li & Longqian Chen & Sai Hu & Jia Wang & Weiqiang Liu & Yu Zhang & Lina Yuan, 2021. "Assessment of Land Ecological Security and Analysis of Influencing Factors in Chaohu Lake Basin, China from 1998–2018," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-28, January.
    16. David Doran & Tim O’Higgins, 2020. "Applications of a Novel Method of Ecosystem Services Assessment into Local Policy Making in the River Blackwater Estuary, Ireland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-16, October.
    17. Yukun Cao & Xianqiao Huang & Xiangyue Liu & Bo Cao, 2023. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution Characteristics, Development Patterns, and Ecological Effects of “Production-Living-Ecological Space” at the City Level in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, January.
    18. Zhang, Jing & Li, Sinan & Lin, Naifa & Lin, Yue & Yuan, Shaofeng & Zhang, Ling & Zhu, Jinxia & Wang, Ke & Gan, Muye & Zhu, Congmou, 2022. "Spatial identification and trade-off analysis of land use functions improve spatial zoning management in rapid urbanized areas, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    19. Yang, Hao & Zou, Runyan & Hu, Yueming & Wang, Lu & Xie, Yingkai & Tan, Zhengxi & Zhu, Zhiqiang & Zhu, A.-Xing & Gong, Jianzhou & Mao, Xiaoyun, 2024. "Sustainable utilization of cultivated land resources based on "element coupling-function synergy" analytical framework: A case study of Guangdong, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    20. Mohammadyari, Fatemeh & Tavakoli, Mohsen & Zarandian, Ardavan & Abdollahi, Sedighe, 2023. "Optimization land use based on multi-scenario simulation of ecosystem service for sustainable landscape planning in a mixed urban - Forest watershed," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 483(C).

    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:14:y:2025:i:3:p:644-:d:1614999. 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.