IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v14y2025i5p1009-d1650470.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trade-Offs, Synergies, and Driving Factors of Ecosystem Services in the Urban–Rural Fringe of Beijing at Multiple Scales

Author

Listed:
  • Chang Wang

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Siyuan Wang

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
    Beijing Laboratory of Urban and Rural Ecology and Environment, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
    National Forestry and Grassland Administration Key Laboratory of Urban and Rural Landscape Construction, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Bing Qi

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Chuling Jiang

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Weiyang Sun

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Yilun Cao

    (School of Architecture, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China)

  • Yunyuan Li

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

Urban–rural fringe areas are critical transition zones where ecological functions and human activities interact intensely, often leading to complex spatial patterns and trade-offs among ecosystem services (ESs). Understanding these patterns and their socio-ecological drivers across multiple spatial scales is essential for sustainable land-use planning and ecosystem management. This study, using the urban–rural fringe (URF) of Beijing as an example, quantified eight representative ecosystem services at the 1 km grid, 3 km grid, and township scales. It employed hotspot analysis, Moran’s Index, and the Spearman correlation to analyze trade-offs and synergies (TOSs) among ESs. The study also applied a self-organizing map and the NbClust function to identify and determine the optimal number of ecosystem service bundles (ESBs) for ecological functional zoning. Redundancy analysis was used to explore the impacts of six socio-ecological drivers on the spatial distribution of ESs. The results revealed the following: (1) The spatial distribution of ESs in Beijing’s URF exhibits clustering and cross-scale variations, with spatial clustering intensifying as the scale expands. (2) TOSs among ESs vary in strength and direction across the three spatial scales. (3) The primary drivers of TOSs at all three scales are the normalized vegetation index and annual precipitation. (4) Based on the supply intensity of various ESs, the study area was classified into four types of ESBs across the three scales: ecologically restricted areas, food production areas, ecologically balanced areas, and high-quality ecological areas. The township scale is more conducive to planning and management, while the 1 km and 3 km grid scales are more helpful for understanding the relationship between land use and ESs.

Suggested Citation

  • Chang Wang & Siyuan Wang & Bing Qi & Chuling Jiang & Weiyang Sun & Yilun Cao & Yunyuan Li, 2025. "Trade-Offs, Synergies, and Driving Factors of Ecosystem Services in the Urban–Rural Fringe of Beijing at Multiple Scales," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-26, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:5:p:1009-:d:1650470
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/1009/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/1009/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dengyue Zhao & Mingzhu Xiao & Chunbo Huang & Yuan Liang & Ziyue An, 2021. "Landscape Dynamics Improved Recreation Service of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Steur, Gijs & Verburg, René W. & Wassen, Martin J. & Verweij, Pita A., 2020. "Shedding light on relationships between plant diversity and tropical forest ecosystem services across spatial scales and plot sizes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    3. Primmer, Eeva & Jokinen, Pekka & Blicharska, Malgorzata & Barton, David N. & Bugter, Rob & Potschin, Marion, 2015. "Governance of Ecosystem Services: A framework for empirical analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 158-166.
    4. Chen, Wanxu & Chi, Guangqing, 2022. "Urbanization and ecosystem services: The multi-scale spatial spillover effects and spatial variations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(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. Xiaolu Yan & Xinyuan Li & Chenghao Liu & Jiawei Li & Jingqiu Zhong, 2022. "Scales and Historical Evolution: Methods to Reveal the Relationships between Ecosystem Service Bundles and Socio-Ecological Drivers—A Case Study of Dalian City, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Ruiqi Zhang & Chunguang Hu & Yucheng Sun, 2024. "Decoding the Characteristics of Ecosystem Services and the Scale Effect in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Urban Agglomeration: Insights for Planning and Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-26, September.
    3. Shuangshuang Liu & Qipeng Liao & Mingzhu Xiao & Dengyue Zhao & Chunbo Huang, 2022. "Spatial and Temporal Variations of Habitat Quality and Its Response of Landscape Dynamic in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Jingjing Liu & Jing Wang & Tianlin Zhai & Zehui Li, 2022. "The Response of Ecologically Functional Land to Changes in Urban Economic Growth and Transportation Construction in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-17, November.
    5. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    6. Falk, Thomas & Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Siegmund-Schultze, Marianna & Kobbe, Susanne & Feike, Til & Kuebler, Daniel & Settele, Josef & Vorlaufer, Tobias, 2018. "Identifying governance challenges in ecosystem services management – Conceptual considerations and comparison of global forest cases," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 193-203.
    7. Savilaakso, Sini & Guariguata, Manuel R., 2017. "Challenges for developing Forest Stewardship Council certification for ecosystem services: How to enhance local adoption?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 55-66.
    8. Sattler, Claudia & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Meyer, Claas, 2018. "Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: An introduction," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 155-168.
    9. Keenan, Rodney J. & Pozza, Greg & Fitzsimons, James A., 2019. "Ecosystem services in environmental policy: Barriers and opportunities for increased adoption," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Mengting Dong & Zeyuan Liu & Xiufeng Ni & Zhulin Qi & Jinnan Wang & Qingyu Zhang, 2023. "Re-Evaluating the Value of Ecosystem Based on Carbon Benefit: A Case Study in Chengdu, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-16, August.
    11. Ingrid Nesheim & Line Barkved, 2019. "The Suitability of the Ecosystem Services Framework for Guiding Benefit Assessments in Human-Modified Landscapes Exemplified by Regulated Watersheds—Implications for a Sustainable Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, March.
    12. Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron J. & Smetschka, Barbara, 2018. "Improving payments for ecosystem services (PES) outcomes through the use of Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) and the software OPTamos," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 47-55.
    13. Hysing, Erik, 2021. "Challenges and opportunities for the Ecosystem Services approach: Evaluating experiences of implementation in Sweden," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    14. Fedele, Giacomo & Locatelli, Bruno & Djoudi, Houria, 2017. "Mechanisms mediating the contribution of ecosystem services to human well-being and resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 43-54.
    15. Hongye Li & Yutian Hu & Hao Li & Jinjie Ren & Rujie Shao & Zhicheng Liu, 2023. "Assessing the Impact of Spatiotemporal Evolution of Urbanization on Carbon Storage in the Mega-Urban Agglomeration Area: Case Study of Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-20, October.
    16. Yizhou Wu & Zichun Huang & Dan Han & Xiaoli Qiu & Yaxin Pan, 2023. "Evolution of Urban Ecosystem Service Value and a Scenario Analysis Based on Land Utilization Changes: A Case Study of Hangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, May.
    17. Dick, Jan & Turkelboom, Francis & Woods, Helen & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Bezák, Peter & Mederly, Peter & Leone, Michael & Verheyden, Wim & Kelemen, Eszter & Ha, 2018. "Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 552-565.
    18. Paavola, Jouni & Primmer, Eeva, 2019. "Governing the Provision of Insurance Value From Ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Barton, D.N. & Kelemen, E. & Dick, J. & Martin-Lopez, B. & Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Jacobs, S. & Hendriks, C.M.A. & Termansen, M. & García- Llorente, M. & Primmer, E. & Dunford, R. & Harrison, P.A. & Tur, 2018. "(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 529-541.
    20. Mann, Carsten & Loft, Lasse & Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica, 2021. "Assessing forest governance innovations in Europe: Needs, challenges and ways forward for sustainable forest ecosystem service provision," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:5:p:1009-:d:1650470. 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.