IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i13p10352-d1183884.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial-Temporal Evolution, Trade-Offs and Synergies of Ecosystem Services in the Qinba Mountains

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaofeng He

    (Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Management Station of Longnan, Wudu, Longnan 746413, China)

  • Wenqing Li

    (College of Geography and Environment Science, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730071, China)

  • Xingchao Xu

    (College of Geography and Environment Science, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730071, China)

  • Xueyan Zhao

    (College of Geography and Environment Science, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730071, China)

Abstract

A scientific understanding of the trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services is the prerequisite for maintaining the structure, function and health of forest ecosystems, which is conducive to promoting the “win-win” goal of economic development and ecological protection. As an important ecological function area in China, the Qinba Mountain region is responsible for important ecological services such as biodiversity conservation and water conservation, and exploring the trade-offs and synergistic relationships of ecosystem services is important for ecological conservation and high-quality development in this region. This paper analyzes the spatial and temporal characteristics of water conservation, soil conservation, carbon sequestration, and habitat quality services and their synergistic/balancing relationships in the Qinba Mountain region from 1990 to 2020 using tools such as the InVEST model, ArcGIS, and Matlab. The results showed that (1) the overall trend of water connotation, soil conservation and carbon sequestration in the Qinba Mountains is increasing, while the trend of habitat quality is fluctuating and decreasing. The spatial distribution pattern of water conservation and soil conservation services was “high in the southwest and low in the northeast”, while the spatial pattern of habitat quality services was the opposite; the spatial distribution pattern of carbon sequestration services was “low in the middle and high around”. (2) Habitat quality in the Qinba Mountains has a trade-off relationship with water connotation and soil conservation, as water connotation–soil conservation is a synergistic relationship, while carbon sequestration is unrelated to water connotation–soil conservation and habitat quality. (3) The area of habitat quality–water conservation showed a decreasing trend; the area of habitat quality–soil conservation showed an increasing trend; the area of habitat quality-water conservation showed a decreasing trend; the area of habitat quality-soil conservation showed an increasing trend; the area of water conservation-soil conservation service synergistic relationship showed a decreasing and then increasing trend; while the area of carbon sequestration service and In most of the regions, carbon sequestration, soil conservation and habitat quality services are not related to each other.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaofeng He & Wenqing Li & Xingchao Xu & Xueyan Zhao, 2023. "Spatial-Temporal Evolution, Trade-Offs and Synergies of Ecosystem Services in the Qinba Mountains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-16, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:13:p:10352-:d:1183884
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13/10352/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13/10352/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haipeng Niu & Mengmeng Liu & Dongyang Xiao & Xiaoming Zhao & Ran An & Liangxin Fan, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Characteristics of Trade-Offs and Synergies in Ecosystem Services at Watershed and Landscape Scales: A Case Analysis of the Yellow River Basin (Henan Section)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-24, November.
    2. Turkelboom, Francis & Leone, Michael & Jacobs, Sander & Kelemen, Eszter & García-Llorente, Marina & Baró, Francesc & Termansen, Mette & Barton, David N. & Berry, Pam & Stange, Erik & Thoonen, Marijke , 2018. "When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 566-578.
    3. Jianxiu Yang & Xing Ma & Xueyan Zhao & Wenqing Li, 2022. "Spatiotemporal of the Coupling Relationship between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being in Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-19, October.
    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. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    2. Antonio J. Castro & Cristina Quintas-Soriano & Jodi Brandt & Carla L. Atkinson & Colden V. Baxter & Morey Burnham & Benis N. Egoh & Marina García-Llorente & Jason P. Julian & Berta Martín-López & Feli, 2018. "Applying Place-Based Social-Ecological Research to Address Water Scarcity: Insights for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    3. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    4. Van Oijstaeijen, Wito & Van Passel, Steven & Back, Phil & Cools, Jan, 2022. "The politics of green infrastructure: A discrete choice experiment with Flemish local decision-makers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    5. Hani Amir Aouissi & Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor & Mostefa Ababsa & Maria Boştenaru-Dan & Mahmoud Tourki & Zihad Bouslama, 2021. "Influence of Land Use on Avian Diversity in North African Urban Environments," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    6. Montoya, Daniel & Gaba, Sabrina & de Mazancourt, Claire & Bretagnolle, Vincent & Loreau, Michel, 2020. "Reconciling biodiversity conservation, food production and farmers’ demand in agricultural landscapes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 416(C).
    7. Armands Auzins & Uchendu Eugene Chigbu, 2021. "Values-Led Planning Approach in Spatial Development: A Methodology," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Han, Bo & Jin, Xiaobin & Sun, Rui & Li, Hanbing & Liang, Xinyuan & Zhou, Yinkang, 2023. "Understanding land-use sustainability with a systematical framework: An evaluation case of China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    9. Jiao Zhang & Qian Wang & Yiping Xia & Katsunori Furuya, 2022. "Knowledge Map of Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development: A Visual Analysis Using CiteSpace," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-24, February.
    10. Zhijun Luo & Xiaofang Yang, 2024. "Interrelationships between Urbanization and Ecosystem Services in the Urban Agglomeration around Poyang Lake and Its Zoning Management at an Integrated Multi-Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-23, June.
    11. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    12. Dehghani Pour, Milad & Barati, Ali Akbar & Azadi, Hossein & Scheffran, Jürgen & Shirkhani, Mehdi, 2023. "Analyzing forest residents' perception and knowledge of forest ecosystem services to guide forest management and biodiversity conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    13. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    14. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    15. Toraño Caicoya, Astor & Vergarechea, Marta & Blattert, Clemens & Klein, Julian & Eyvindson, Kyle & Burgas, Daniel & Snäll, Tord & Mönkkönen, Mikko & Astrup, Rasmus & Di Fulvio, Fulvio & Forsell, Nikla, 2023. "What drives forest multifunctionality in central and northern Europe? Exploring the interplay of management, climate, and policies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    16. Antonio J. Castro & María D. López-Rodríguez & Cynthia Giagnocavo & Miguel Gimenez & Leticia Céspedes & Abel La Calle & Marisa Gallardo & Pablo Pumares & Javier Cabello & Estefanía Rodríguez & David U, 2019. "Six Collective Challenges for Sustainability of Almería Greenhouse Horticulture," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-23, October.
    17. Yang Bai & Thomas O. Ochuodho & Jian Yang & Domena A. Agyeman, 2021. "Bundles and Hotspots of Multiple Ecosystem Services for Optimized Land Management in Kentucky, United States," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, January.
    18. Aryal, Kishor & Ojha, Bhuwan Raj & Maraseni, Tek, 2021. "Perceived importance and economic valuation of ecosystem services in Ghodaghodi wetland of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    19. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    20. Juerges, Nataly & Arts, Bas & Masiero, Mauro & Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke & Borges, José G. & Brodrechtova, Yvonne & Brukas, Vilis & Canadas, Maria João & Carvalho, Pedro Ochôa & Corradini, Giulia & Cor, 2021. "Power analysis as a tool to analyse trade-offs between ecosystem services in forest management: A case study from nine European countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).

    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:15:y:2023:i:13:p:10352-:d:1183884. 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.