Hotspot and relationship identification in multiple landscape services: A case study on an area with intensive human activities

Wu, Jinlei; Feng, Zhe; Gao, Yang; Peng, Jian

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.037

Cited by 94 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Typically, total amounts of ES are spatially aggregated into watersheds, counties, grids, pixels, etc., prior to analysis of http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss1/art43/ cumulative or summary values, e.g., percent orchard, total carbon storage, etc. (Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010, Wu et al 2013. Such aggregated information obscures interactions when ES compete for space.…”

Section: Detailed Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our ~60-year timeframe is one of the longest reconstructions of multiple ES interactions to date, yet our change-over-time results, which do not detect certain interactions commonly found using static ES maps, may reflect the absence of specific drivers of change over our study period. For example, crop production has been negatively correlated with water quality (Qiu and Turner 2013), carbon, nature appreciation, soil organic carbon , and habitat conservation (Wu et al 2013). We found a trade-off between carbon storage and both forage and orchards using a space-for-time approach, but not using a change-over-time approach, which showed no interaction.…”

Section: Detailed Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies misunderstood without landscape history

Tomscha¹,

Gergel²

2016

E&S

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Dramatic changes in ecosystem services have motivated recent work characterizing their interactions, including identifying trade-offs and synergies. Although time is arguably implicit in these ideas of trade-offs and synergies (e.g., temporal dynamics or changes in ecosystem services), such interactions are routinely inferred based on the spatial relationships among ecosystem services alone (e.g., spatial concordance of ecosystem services indicates synergies, whereas incongruence signifies trade-offs). The limitations of this approach have not been fully explored. We quantified ecosystem service interactions using correlations among contemporary ecosystem services and compared these results to those derived by incorporating change in ecosystem services from an earlier decade. To document change over ~60 years in an urbanizing floodplain, we used aerial photography to map multiple floodplain-associated ecosystem services. Our results demonstrate how incorporating landscape baselines can influence measured synergies and trade-offs. Spatial correlations among contemporary ecosystem services missed several interactions that were detected when using prior baseline ecosystem services. Ignoring the history of ecosystem services and their change over time may result in missed opportunities to foster their synergies and lead to unnecessary trade-offs. Efforts to incorporate ecosystem services into land management should include long-term monitoring and baseline reconstructions of ecosystem services.

show abstract

Section: Detailed Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Detailed Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies misunderstood without landscape history

Tomscha¹,

Gergel²

2016

E&S

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1). By implementing scenario conditions (Table 1), global models calculated changes in gross domestic product, required areas for food, feed and bioenergy crops, and wood production (Kallio et al 2004;Lotze-Campen et al 2008;Luderer et al 2013;Woltjer and Kuiper 2014). The simulations from these global models were fed into different regional models that calculated urban land demand, crop-specific fertilizer use, livestock numbers, and potential supply of woody biomass from European forests at the national or subnational level (Britz and Witzke 2012;Lotze-Campen et al 2014;Sallnäs 1990;Schelhaas et al 2007;Verkerk et al 2011).…”

Section: Land Cover and Land Management Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulating and delineating future land change trajectories across Europe

Stürck¹,

Levers

Zanden³

et al. 2015

Reg Environ Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explorations of future land use change are important to understand potential conflicts between competing land uses, trade-offs associated with particular land change trajectories, and the effectiveness of policies to steer land systems into desirable states. Most model-based explorations and scenario studies focused on conversions in broad land use classes, but disregarded changes in land management or focused on individual sectors only. Using the European Union (EU) as a case study, we developed an approach to identifying typical combinations of land cover and management changes by combining the results of multimodel simulations in the agriculture and forest sectors for four scenarios from 2000 to 2040. We visualized land change trajectories by mapping regional hotspots of change. Land change trajectories differed in extent and spatial pattern across the EU and among scenarios, indicating trajectory-specific option spaces for alternative land system outcomes. In spite of the large variation in the area of change, similar hotspots of land change were observed among the scenarios. All scenarios indicate a stronger polarization of land use in Europe, with a loss of multifunctional landscapes. We analyzed locations subject to change by comparing location characteristics associated with certain land change trajectories. Results indicate differences in the location conditions of different land change trajectories, with diverging impacts on ecosystem service provisioning. Policy and planning for future land use needs to account for the spatial variation of land change trajectories to achieve both overarching and location-specific targets.

show abstract

“…The correlation analysis could be used to help determine the relationship between ecosystem services (Laterra et al, 2012;Wu et al, 2013). Positive correlation coefficient signifies two kinds of ecosystem services change in the same direction, could be seen as synergy; reversely, negative correlation coefficient signifies that two ecosystem services change in the opposite direction, deemed as a tradeoff (Zheng et al, 2014).…”

Section: Relationship Between Npp and Wy Over Yanhe Basinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, little attention has been paid to the quantification of the extent of tradeoff between ecosystem services, especially in a clear and concise way. Meanwhile, the hotspots of ecosystem services, in which the value of specific ecosystem service is much higher than elsewhere, have been reported in some literatures (Jiang et al, 2013;Wu et al, 2013), but the tradeoff hotspot between ecosystem services has been little discussed whereby the tension of tradeoff is much more serious. Although Qiu and Turner (2013) attempted to identify the place that the strongest relationship among ecosystem services happened, ecosystem services data employed in the study was limited to only one given year (Qiu and Turner, 2013), meaning a p o i n t o f t i m e .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

GIS-based analysis for hotspot identification of tradeoff between ecosystem services: A case study in Yanhe Basin, China

Zheng

Feng

2016

Chin. Geogr. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Although the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services have been studied for a long time, few studies have specifically focused on the quantification of tradeoffs between ecosystem services and tradeoff hotspots. Based on previous studies of ecosystem service assessment, we proposed a feasible method to analyze the tradeoffs between ecosystem services, including determination of their relationship, quantification of tradeoffs, and identification of tradeoff hotspots. Potential influencing factors were then further analyzed. The Yanhe Basin in the Loess Plateau was selected as an example to demonstrate the application process. Firstly, the amounts of net primary production (NPP) and water yield (WY) in 2000 and 2008 were estimated by using biophysical models. Secondly, correlation analysis was used to indicate the tradeoffs between NPP and WY. Thirdly, tradeoff index (TI NPP/WY ) was established to quantify the extent of tradeoffs between NPP and WY, and the average value of TI NPP/WY is 24.4 g/(mm·m 2 ) for the Yanhe Basin between 2000 and 2008. Finally, the tradeoff hotspots were identified. The results indicated that the area of lowest tradeoff index concentrated in the middle part of the Yanhe Basin and marginal areas of the southern basin. Map overlapping was used for preliminary analysis to seek potential influencing factors, and the results showed that shrub was the best suited for growing in the Yanhe Basin, but also was a potential influencing factor for formulation of the tradeoff hotspots. The concept of tradeoff index could also be used to quantify the degree of synergy between different ecosystem services. The method to identify the tradeoff hotspots could help us to narrow the scope of study area for further research on the relationship among ecosystem services and concentrate on the potential factors for formation of tradeoff between ecosystem services, enhance the capacity to maintain the sustainability of ecosystem.

show abstract

Hotspot and relationship identification in multiple landscape services: A case study on an area with intensive human activities

Cited by 94 publications

References 41 publications

Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies misunderstood without landscape history

Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies misunderstood without landscape history

Simulating and delineating future land change trajectories across Europe

GIS-based analysis for hotspot identification of tradeoff between ecosystem services: A case study in Yanhe Basin, China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About