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. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Fang, Xuening & Ma, Qun & Liu, Zhifeng & Wu, Jianguo, 2024. "Landscape sustainability and land sustainability: A bibliometric analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Lin, Kuan-Ting & Pan, Shu-Yuan & Yuan, Mei-Hua & Zhang, Yi-Ting & Guo, Horng-Yuh, 2025. "Synergies between rice production security and soil-related ecosystem services: From field observations to policy implementations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    9. Huaxiang Chen & Lina Tang & Quanyi Qiu & Baosheng Wang & Weixiang Hu, 2020. "Spatial Trade-Offs and Temporal Evolution of Multiple Ecosystem Services in a Marine-Terrestrial Urban-Agglomeration Zone," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Linye Zhu & Mingming Shi & Deqin Fan & Kun Tu & Wenbin Sun, 2023. "Analysis of Changes in Vegetation Carbon Storage and Net Primary Productivity as Influenced by Land-Cover Change in Inner Mongolia, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Jinjin Wu & Xueru Jin & Zhe Feng & Tianqian Chen & Chenxu Wang & Dingrao Feng & Jiaqi Lv, 2021. "Relationship of Ecosystem Services in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region Based on the Production Possibility Frontier," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    12. Jiang, Tangyang & Guo, Qimeng & Yu, Jinghan & Jahanger, Atif & Yu, Yang & Li, Xiaolong, 2025. "Spatial mismatch of resources in China under the “dual-carbon” goal: A new perspective incorporating energy and environmental factors," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    13. Yuyan Pan & Yanpeng Gao & Hongchang Qian, 2025. "Progressive Framework for Analyzing Driving Mechanisms of Ecosystem Services in Resource-Exhausted Cities: A Case Study of Fushun, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-26, April.
    14. Edita, Abalikstiene & Dalia, Perkumiene, 2022. "Challenges and problems of agricultural land use changes in Lithuania according to territorial planning documents: Case of Vilnius district municipality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    15. Hua Li & Dan Su & Yu Cao & Jiayi Wang & Yu Cao, 2022. "Optimizing the Compensation Standard of Cultivated Land Protection Based on Ecosystem Services in the Hangzhou Bay Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    16. Regina Márcia Longo & Alessandra Leite da Silva & Adélia N. Nunes & Diego de Melo Conti & Raissa Caroline Gomes & Fabricio Camillo Sperandio & Admilson Irio Ribeiro, 2023. "Analysis of Potential Supply of Ecosystem Services in Forest Remnants through Neural Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-16, October.
    17. 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.
    18. Abebe Mengaw Wubie & Walter T. de Vries & Berhanu Kefale Alemie, 2020. "A Socio-Spatial Analysis of Land Use Dynamics and Process of Land Intervention in the Peri-Urban Areas of Bahir Dar City," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-27, November.
    19. Luwen Liu & Jiahui Wu & Liyan Yang & Guiling Tang & Wanxu Chen & Haifeng Wu & Yan Chen, 2024. "Conflict or Coordination? Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand in Chinese Urban Agglomerations," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, October.
    20. Dikman Maheng & Assela Pathirana & Chris Zevenbergen, 2021. "A Preliminary Study on the Impact of Landscape Pattern Changes Due to Urbanization: Case Study of Jakarta, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-26, February.

    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.