IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v14y2025i5p949-d1643808.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatiotemporal Effects and Driving Factors of Ecosystem Services Trade-Offs in the Beijing Plain Area

Author

Listed:
  • Lige Bao

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

  • Yifei Liu

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
    Hangzhou International Urbanology Research Center & Zhejiang Urban Governance Studies Center, Hangzhou 311121, China)

Abstract

Identifying the spatiotemporal variations in and driving factors of trade-offs and synergies among ESs in the plain area forms a critical foundation for the effective management of ecosystems and regulation. It is also crucial for effectively distributing the management of natural assets and the formulation of effective ecological policy. This research utilized correlation analysis, GWR and OPGD to examine the trade-offs and synergies among Net Primary Production, Soil Carbon, Water Conservation, and Habitat Quality in the Beijing Plain from 2001 to 2020. The results revealed that from 2001 to 2020, HQ and SC showed a declining trend, while NPP and WC exhibited an increasing trend. The trade-off intensities among NPP-SC, NPP-WC, and WC-HQ increased, whereas the trade-off intensities among NPP-HQ, SC-HQ, and SC-WC decreased. High-synergy areas for NPP-HQ, SC-HQ, and SC-WC were focused in the central urban area, with scattered distribution in the southeast and northwest. NPP-SC displayed a fragmented spatial distribution with significant variations. The spatiotemporal distributions of NPP-WC and WC-HQ were highly similar, both exhibiting strong synergy. However, NPP-WC demonstrated strong trade-offs in the northern plain area but weaker trade-offs elsewhere, while WC-HQ exhibited strong trade-offs outside the central urban area. The kind of land use was the primary element affecting the trade-off intensities of NPP-HQ, SC-HQ, and WC-HQ. NDVI and precipitation significantly influenced NPP-SC. The key factors influencing the spatial variation in NPP-WC were the land use type, temperature, and precipitation. Temperature was the primary determinant affecting SC-WC. The trade-off intensity among ESs is not determined by a single factor but is driven by the interactions between services or shared influencing factors, exhibiting high spatial heterogeneity. These findings provide valuable guidance for developing strategies for land-use planning and ecological restoration.

Suggested Citation

  • Lige Bao & Yifei Liu, 2025. "Spatiotemporal Effects and Driving Factors of Ecosystem Services Trade-Offs in the Beijing Plain Area," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:5:p:949-:d:1643808
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/949/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/949/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yanyan Jia & Xiaolan Tang & Wei Liu, 2020. "Spatial–Temporal Evolution and Correlation Analysis of Ecosystem Service Value and Landscape Ecological Risk in Wuhu City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Shuangying Li & Yanyan Zhou & Dongxia Yue & Zhongling Guo & Zhi Li, 2024. "Scenario Simulation of Ecosystem Services Based on Land Use/Land Cover Change in the Bailong River Basin, in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Jiang, Wei & Wu, Tong & Fu, Bojie, 2021. "The value of ecosystem services in China: A systematic review for twenty years," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    4. Sipesihle Booi & Syden Mishi & Oddgeir Andersen, 2022. "Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review of Provisioning and Cultural Ecosystem Services in Estuaries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-29, June.
    5. Yang, Zihao & Wang, Hao & Chen, Bin, 2024. "Assessment of urban waterlogging-induced road traffic safety risk and identification of its driving factors: A case study of Beijing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    6. Mach, Megan E. & Martone, Rebecca G. & Chan, Kai M.A., 2015. "Human impacts and ecosystem services: Insufficient research for trade-off evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 112-120.
    7. Feng, Zhe & Jin, Xueru & Chen, Tianqian & Wu, Jiansheng, 2021. "Understanding trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services to support the decision-making in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. van Oort, P.A.J. & Wang, G. & Vos, J. & Meinke, H. & Li, B.G. & Huang, J.K. & van der Werf, W., 2016. "Towards groundwater neutral cropping systems in the Alluvial Fans of the North China Plain," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 131-140.
    9. Evans, D.L. & Falagán, N. & Hardman, C.A. & Kourmpetli, S. & Liu, L. & Mead, B.R. & Davies, J.A.C., 2022. "Ecosystem service delivery by urban agriculture and green infrastructure – a systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    10. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    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. Zihui Li & Kangwen Zhu & Dan Song & Dongjie Guan & Jiameng Cao & Xiangyuan Su & Yanjun Zhang & Ya Zhang & Yong Ba & Haoyu Wang, 2023. "Analysis of Spatial Relationship Based on Ecosystem Services and Ecological Risk Index in the Counties of Chongqing," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    4. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    5. Wenjie Zhu & Xiaobin Jin & Xiaolin Zhang & Jingping Liu & Yinkang Zhou, 2024. "Ecosystem services to support sustainable development: The modifiable areal unit problem in the transition between evaluation and management units," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(6), pages 6253-6273, December.
    6. Alexander V. Rusanov, 2019. "Dacha dwellers and gardeners: garden plots and second homes in Europe and Russia," Population and Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 3(1), pages 107-124, April.
    7. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    8. Monika Kopecká & Daniel Szatmári & Konštantín Rosina, 2017. "Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    9. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    10. Morton, Cedar & Knowler, Duncan & Brugere, Cecile & Lymer, David & Bartley, Devin, 2017. "Valuation of fish production services in river basins: A case study of the Columbia River," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 101-113.
    11. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    12. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    13. Vasileios A. Tzanakakis & Andrea G. Capodaglio & Andreas N. Angelakis, 2023. "Insights into Global Water Reuse Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-30, August.
    14. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    15. Somajita Paul & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Factors Influencing Perceptions and Use of Urban Nature: Surveys of Park Visitors in Delhi," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23, April.
    16. Xiao, Dengpan & Shen, Yanjun & Qi, Yongqing & Moiwo, Juana P. & Min, Leilei & Zhang, Yucui & Guo, Ying & Pei, Hongwei, 2017. "Impact of alternative cropping systems on groundwater use and grain yields in the North China Plain Region," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 109-117.
    17. Jing Duan & Pu Shi & Yuanyuan Yang & Dongyan Wang, 2024. "Spatiotemporal Change Analysis and Multi-Scenario Modeling of Ecosystem Service Values: A Case Study of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-21, October.
    18. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    19. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    20. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.

    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:949-:d:1643808. 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.