IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i17p9839-d627380.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs and Synergies in Ulansuhai Basin

Author

Listed:
  • Lina Wang

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Enyi Yu

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China)

  • Shuang Li

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Xiao Fu

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China)

  • Gang Wu

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

Abstract

As an important grain production base and ecological barrier zone in China, Ulansuhai Basin provides a variety of important ecosystem services and ensures human well-being, and it is essential to maintain the sustainable development of the regional ecology–economy–society. Therefore, in order to explore the trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services in Ulansuhai Basin, we first evaluated the spatio-temporal characteristics of five ecosystem services in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2018 based on the InVEST model, including soil conservation, carbon storage, water production, water purification, and food supply. We then further analyzed the trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services in Ulansuhai Basin and in different functional areas through using the Spearman correlation coefficient. The results show that different ecosystem services had obvious regional differences due to different land-use types in Ulansuhai Basin. Soil conservation, carbon storage, and water production were higher in the eastern region and lower in the central and western regions, while water purification and food supply were higher in the central region and lower in the eastern and western regions. Ecosystem services showed an overall increasing trend from 2000 to 2018. Moreover, trade-off was the dominant relationship between different ecosystem services, and trade-offs and synergies showed strengthening trends to a certain extent. The trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services in different functional areas were obviously different. Our study aimed to clarify the trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services and to propose ecological protection and management countermeasures and suggestions, which can provide decision-making reference for regional ecological protection and management.

Suggested Citation

  • Lina Wang & Enyi Yu & Shuang Li & Xiao Fu & Gang Wu, 2021. "Analysis of Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs and Synergies in Ulansuhai Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-18, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9839-:d:627380
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9839/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9839/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tingting Kang & Shuai Yang & Jingyi Bu & Jiahao Chen & Yanchun Gao, 2020. "Quantitative Assessment for the Dynamics of the Main Ecosystem Services and their Interactions in the Northwestern Arid Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Tolessa, Terefe & Senbeta, Feyera & Kidane, Moges, 2017. "The impact of land use/land cover change on ecosystem services in the central highlands of Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 47-54.
    3. Xuefeng Zhang & Jianming Niu & Alexander Buyantuev & Qing Zhang & Jianjun Dong & Sarula Kang & Jing Zhang, 2016. "Understanding Grassland Degradation and Restoration from the Perspective of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of the Xilin River Basin in Inner Mongolia, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    5. Ainscough, Jacob & de Vries Lentsch, Aster & Metzger, Marc & Rounsevell, Mark & Schröter, Matthias & Delbaere, Ben & de Groot, Rudolf & Staes, Jan, 2019. "Navigating pluralism: Understanding perceptions of the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    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. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    2. Peipei Miao & Xiaoqing Zhao & Junwei Pu & Pei Huang & Xiaoqian Shi & Zexian Gu, 2022. "Study on the Evolution Mechanism of Ecosystem Services in Karst Mountainous Areas from the Perspective of Humanities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Shuming Ma & Jie Huang & Yingying Chai, 2021. "Proposing a GEE-Based Spatiotemporally Adjusted Value Transfer Method to Assess Land-Use Changes and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Service Values in the Shenyang Metropolitan Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    4. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François & V, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Shiliang Liu & Yongxiu Sun & Xue Wu & Weiqiang Li & Yixuan Liu & Lam-Son Phan Tran, 2021. "Driving Factor Analysis of Ecosystem Service Balance for Watershed Management in the Lancang River Valley, Southwest China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Haozhe Zhang & Qingyuan Yang & Zhongxun Zhang & Dan Lu & Huiming Zhang, 2021. "Spatiotemporal Changes of Ecosystem Service Value Determined by National Land Space Pattern Change: A Case Study of Fengdu County in The Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-24, May.
    7. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    8. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    9. Yunfeng Hu & Batu Nacun, 2018. "An Analysis of Land-Use Change and Grassland Degradation from a Policy Perspective in Inner Mongolia, China, 1990–2015," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, November.
    10. Gerner, Nadine V. & Nafo, Issa & Winking, Caroline & Wencki, Kristina & Strehl, Clemens & Wortberg, Timo & Niemann, André & Anzaldua, Gerardo & Lago, Manuel & Birk, Sebastian, 2018. "Large-scale river restoration pays off: A case study of ecosystem service valuation for the Emscher restoration generation project," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 327-338.
    11. Wang, Shifeng & Wang, Sicong & Smith, Pete, 2015. "Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1424-1428.
    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. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    14. Diane P. Dupont, 2019. "Editorial: Special Issue in Honour of Dr. Steven Renzetti," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(02), pages 1-10, April.
    15. Chun-Chu Yeh & Cheng-Shen Lin & Chin-Huang Huang, 2018. "The Total Economic Value of Sport Tourism in Belt and Road Development—An Environmental Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    16. Pistorius, Till & Schaich, Harald & Winkel, Georg & Plieninger, Tobias & Bieling, Claudia & Konold, Werner & Volz, Karl-Reinhard, 2012. "Lessons for REDDplus: A comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 4-12.
    17. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    18. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    19. Indre Siksnelyte-Butkiene & Dalia Streimikiene & Giulio Paolo Agnusdei & Tomas Balezentis, 2023. "Energy-space concept for the transition to a low-carbon energy society," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(12), pages 14953-14973, December.
    20. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9839-:d:627380. 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.