How much do we know about trade-offs in ecosystem services? A systematic review of empirical research observations
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved..
As an important domain of sustainability science, trade-offs in ecosystem services (ES) is crucial for spatial planning to sustainably manage natural resources while satisfying the needs of local and non-local beneficiaries. However, there is still a growing debate in understanding, characterization, and visualization of the trade-off relationships. This paper systematically reviews a total of 473 articles, published in the last 16 years (2005-2020) through 135 academic journals, based on empirical studies conducted in over 80 countries, and led by the researcher from over 50 countries. Trade-off relationships are often visualized as spatial associations of ES, but very few articles have characterized trade-offs as the causal interaction among ES. More than two-thirds of the studies were carried out in temperate and sub-tropical regions, but we depicted an under-representation of the critical ecosystems in tropics. About 90% of the articles were based on funded research but the involvement of government institutions was very low (<10%). Trade-off analysis was based only on biophysical constraints of the ecosystem, as observed in more than 80% of the selected articles, without due regards of the divergence in utility functions of different stakeholders and ecosystem beneficiaries. This study identifies a total of 198 pairs of conflicting ES, of which the trade-off between crop production and carbon/climate services has the highest records of observation (i.e., as identified by 20% of the total studies). Further, this study identifies the major drivers (i.e., ecological and social) and stakeholders (i.e., land users and government agencies) of trade-off in ES, and major gaps in the analytical approach to understand the trade-off relationships. Based on our findings, we have discussed and recommended a number of research trajectories, including trans-disciplinary research considering both biophysical constraints and utility functions, in order to guide the future direction of sustainability science through the creation of win-win scenarios.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:806 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
The Science of the total environment - 806(2022), Pt 3 vom: 01. Feb., Seite 151229 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Aryal, Kishor [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Ecosystem services |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 03.12.2021 Date Revised 14.12.2021 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151229 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM332535312 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM332535312 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225215753.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151229 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1108.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM332535312 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)34715235 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S0048-9697(21)06307-5 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Aryal, Kishor |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a How much do we know about trade-offs in ecosystem services? A systematic review of empirical research observations |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 03.12.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 14.12.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a As an important domain of sustainability science, trade-offs in ecosystem services (ES) is crucial for spatial planning to sustainably manage natural resources while satisfying the needs of local and non-local beneficiaries. However, there is still a growing debate in understanding, characterization, and visualization of the trade-off relationships. This paper systematically reviews a total of 473 articles, published in the last 16 years (2005-2020) through 135 academic journals, based on empirical studies conducted in over 80 countries, and led by the researcher from over 50 countries. Trade-off relationships are often visualized as spatial associations of ES, but very few articles have characterized trade-offs as the causal interaction among ES. More than two-thirds of the studies were carried out in temperate and sub-tropical regions, but we depicted an under-representation of the critical ecosystems in tropics. About 90% of the articles were based on funded research but the involvement of government institutions was very low (<10%). Trade-off analysis was based only on biophysical constraints of the ecosystem, as observed in more than 80% of the selected articles, without due regards of the divergence in utility functions of different stakeholders and ecosystem beneficiaries. This study identifies a total of 198 pairs of conflicting ES, of which the trade-off between crop production and carbon/climate services has the highest records of observation (i.e., as identified by 20% of the total studies). Further, this study identifies the major drivers (i.e., ecological and social) and stakeholders (i.e., land users and government agencies) of trade-off in ES, and major gaps in the analytical approach to understand the trade-off relationships. Based on our findings, we have discussed and recommended a number of research trajectories, including trans-disciplinary research considering both biophysical constraints and utility functions, in order to guide the future direction of sustainability science through the creation of win-win scenarios | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Ecosystem services | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Production possibility frontiers | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Sustainability framework | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Trade-offs | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Utility functions | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Maraseni, Tek |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Apan, Armando |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t The Science of the total environment |d 1972 |g 806(2022), Pt 3 vom: 01. Feb., Seite 151229 |w (DE-627)NLM000215562 |x 1879-1026 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:806 |g year:2022 |g number:Pt 3 |g day:01 |g month:02 |g pages:151229 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151229 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 806 |j 2022 |e Pt 3 |b 01 |c 02 |h 151229 | ||