IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i23p15681-d983935.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trade-Off Analyses of Multiple Ecosystem Services and Their Drivers in the Shandong Yellow River Basin

Author

Listed:
  • Xufang Zhang

    (College of Geography and Environment, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250358, China)

  • Yu Yang

    (College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Minghua Zhao

    (College of Geography and Environment, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250358, China)

  • Rongqing Han

    (College of Geography and Environment, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250358, China)

  • Shijie Yang

    (College of Geography and Environment, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250358, China)

  • Xiaojie Wang

    (College of Geography and Environment, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250358, China)

  • Xiantao Tang

    (College of Geography and Environment, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250358, China)

  • Weijuan Qu

    (College of Geography and Environment, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250358, China)

Abstract

With the intensification of conflicts between different ecosystem services, how to achieve a win-win situation between socio-economic development and ecological protection is an important issue that needs to be addressed nowadays. In particular, how to better quantify and assess the intensity of ecosystem service trade-offs and their relative benefits, and to identify the influencing factors are issues that need to be studied in depth. Based on the INVEST model, this paper analyzed the evolution of spatial and temporal patterns of ecosystem services such as Carbon Storage (CS), Food Production (FP), Habitat Quality (HQ), and Water Yield (WY) in the Shandong Yellow River Basin (SYRB) in 2000, 2010 and 2020. Next, we quantitatively measured the trade-off intensity and revealed the key influencing factors of the trade-off intensity evolution using automatic linear models, root mean square deviation, and geographically weighted regressions. Subsequently, we further analyzed the impact of the correlation between environmental and socio-economic factors on the trade-off intensity of ecosystem services. The results indicated that the temporal and spatial changes of the four main ecosystem services in SYRB area were inconsistent. WY showed a fluctuating trend, with a large interannual gap. CS and FP are on the rise, while HQ is on the decline. Spatially, WY and HQ showed a decreasing distribution from the center to the periphery, while FP and CS showed a decreasing distribution from the southwest to the northeast. The location characteristics of SYRB’s four ecosystem services and their trade-offs were obvious. FP had absolute location advantage in ecosystem service trade-offs. Most of the four ecosystem services showed significant trade-offs, and the trade-off intensity had significant spatial heterogeneity, but the trade-off between FP and CS was relatively weak. At the same time, there were also differences in the trends of trade-off intensities. Counties with low trade-off intensity were mostly located in mountainous areas; these areas are less disturbed by human activities, and most of them are areas without prominent services. Counties with high trade-off intensities were mostly concentrated in areas with relatively developed agriculture; these areas are more disturbed by human activities and are mostly prominent in FP. The trade-off intensity of ecosystem services in SYRB was affected by several factors together, and there were difference characteristics in the degree and direction of influence of each factor. Moreover, these influencing factors have gradually changed over 20 years. In terms of the spatial distribution at the county scale, the influence areas of the dominant drivers of different trade-off types varied greatly, among which the areas with NDVI, CON, and PRE as the dominant factors were the largest. In the future, in effectively balancing regional economic development and ecological environmental protection, quantifiable correspondence strategies should be developed from the administrative perspective of counties and regions based on comprehensive consideration of the locational advantages of each ecosystem service and changes in trade-offs.

Suggested Citation

  • Xufang Zhang & Yu Yang & Minghua Zhao & Rongqing Han & Shijie Yang & Xiaojie Wang & Xiantao Tang & Weijuan Qu, 2022. "Trade-Off Analyses of Multiple Ecosystem Services and Their Drivers in the Shandong Yellow River Basin," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-29, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:15681-:d:983935
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15681/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15681/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xufang Zhang & Minghua Zhao & Xiaojie Wang & Rongqing Han, 2022. "Regional Differences of Farmers’ Willingness to Grow Grain and Its Influencing Factors in Shandong Province under the Background of New-Type Urbanization," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, August.
    2. Jun Hou & Tianlin Qin & Shanshan Liu & Jianwei Wang & Biqiong Dong & Sheng Yan & Hanjiang Nie, 2021. "Analysis and Prediction of Ecosystem Service Values Based on Land Use/Cover Change in the Yiluo River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Moreira, Miguel & Fonseca, Catarina & Vergílio, Marta & Calado, Helena & Gil, Artur, 2018. "Spatial assessment of habitat conservation status in a Macaronesian island based on the InVEST model: a case study of Pico Island (Azores, Portugal)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 637-649.
    4. Chen, Wanxu & Chi, Guangqing & Li, Jiangfeng, 2020. "The spatial aspect of ecosystem services balance and its determinants," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Johnson, Gary W. & Voigt, Brian & Villa, Ferdinando, 2013. "Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 117-125.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ming Sun & Tiange Xu, 2024. "Identification and Management of Epidemic Hazard Areas for Urban Sustainability: A Case Study of Tongzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-25, September.

    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. Yang Yi & Chen Zhang & Jinqi Zhu & Yugang Zhang & Hao Sun & Hongzhang Kang, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution, Prediction and Optimization of LUCC Based on CA-Markov and InVEST Models: A Case Study of Mentougou District, Beijing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Zhang, Xinrong & Wang, Yongsheng & Yuan, Xuefeng & Shao, Yajing & Bai, Yu, 2022. "Identifying ecosystem service supply-demand imbalance for sustainable land management in China’s Loess Plateau," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    3. Yang Zou & Dehua Mao, 2022. "Simulation of Freshwater Ecosystem Service Flows under Land-Use Change: A Case Study of Lianshui River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Wanxu Chen & Guangqing Chi & Jiangfeng Li, 2020. "Ecosystem Services and Their Driving Forces in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Urban Agglomerations, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-19, May.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Min Gon Chung & Tao Pan & Xintong Zou & Jianguo Liu, 2018. "Complex Interrelationships between Ecosystem Services Supply and Tourism Demand: General Framework and Evidence from the Origin of Three Asian Rivers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Carmen Schwartz & Mostafa Shaaban & Sonoko Dorothea Bellingrath-Kimura & Annette Piorr, 2021. "Participatory Mapping of Demand for Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, November.
    9. Tao, Jieyi & Lu, Yuqi & Ge, Dazhuan & Dong, Ping & Gong, Xiao & Ma, Xiaobin, 2022. "The spatial pattern of agricultural ecosystem services from the production-living-ecology perspective: A case study of the Huaihai Economic Zone, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    10. Kaiping Wang & Weiqi Wang & Niyi Zha & Yue Feng & Chenlan Qiu & Yunlu Zhang & Jia Ma & Rui Zhang, 2022. "Spatially Heterogeneity Response of Critical Ecosystem Service Capacity to Address Regional Development Risks to Rapid Urbanization: The Case of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Changchang Liu & Chuxiong Deng & Zhongwu Li & Yaojun Liu & Shuyuan Wang, 2022. "Optimization of Spatial Pattern of Land Use: Progress, Frontiers, and Prospects," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-22, May.
    12. Stephen C. L. Watson & Adrian C. Newton, 2018. "Dependency of Businesses on Flows of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from the County of Dorset, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, April.
    13. Warnell, Katherine J.D. & Russell, Marc & Rhodes, Charles & Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Olander, Lydia P. & Nowak, David J. & Poudel, Rajendra & Glynn, Pierre D. & Hass, Julie L. & Hirabayashi, Satoshi & In, 2020. "Testing ecosystem accounting in the United States: A case study for the Southeast," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Shiliang Liu & Yuhong Dong & Hua Liu & Fangfang Wang & Lu Yu, 2023. "Review of Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services and Realization Approaches in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    16. Zheng Zang, 2021. "Conceptual Model of Ecosystem Service Flows from Carbon Dioxide to Blue Carbon in Coastal Wetlands: An Empirical Study Based on Yancheng, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, April.
    17. Dike Zhang & Jianpeng Wang & Ying Wang & Lei Xu & Liang Zheng & Bowen Zhang & Yuzhe Bi & Hui Yang, 2022. "Is There a Spatial Relationship between Urban Landscape Pattern and Habitat Quality? Implication for Landscape Planning of the Yellow River Basin," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-17, September.
    18. Kevin Thellmann & Marc Cotter & Sabine Baumgartner & Anna Treydte & Georg Cadisch & Folkard Asch, 2018. "Tipping Points in the Supply of Ecosystem Services of a Mountainous Watershed in Southeast Asia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    19. Batara Surya & Despry Nur Annisa Ahmad & Harry Hardian Sakti & Hernita Sahban, 2020. "Land Use Change, Spatial Interaction, and Sustainable Development in the Metropolitan Urban Areas, South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-43, March.
    20. Hanwen Zhang & Yanqing Lang, 2022. "Quantifying and Analyzing the Responses of Habitat Quality to Land Use Change in Guangdong Province, China over the Past 40 Years," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, May.

    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:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:15681-:d:983935. 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.