4.2 Review

Coordinating ecosystem service trade-offs to achieve win-win outcomes: A review of the approaches

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
卷 82, 期 -, 页码 103-112

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jes.2019.02.030

关键词

Ecosystem services; Synergy; Trade-offs; Ecosystem management; Win-wins

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41871217]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA19050504]
  3. Natural Capital Project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ecosystem service (ES) trade-offs have been broadly recognized and studied over the past decade. However, how to coordinate the relationships among ES trade-offs to achieve win-win outcomes remains a considerable challenge for decision makers. Here, we summarize the current approaches applied to minimize ES trade-offs for win-wins and analyze the trade-offs among different ESs and their drivers. Based on a systematic review of the literature from 2005 to 2018, we identified 170 potentially relevant articles, 47 of which were selected for the review, recording 70 actual or potential trade-offs. Analysis of these case studies showed that trade-off pairs between provisioning services and regulating services/biodiversity accounted for 80% of total pairs. Furthermore, more than half of the ES trade-offs were driven by land use/land cover changes. Harvest and resource demand, natural resource management, and policy instruments were also among the main drivers. Four approaches to coordinate ES trade-offs were identified, including ecosystem, landscape-scale, multi-objective optimization, and policy intervention (and other) approaches. Based on the above, we recommend a rigorous understanding of the roles of different stakeholders, spatial scales of management, trade-off dynamics, and integrated implementation of diverse approaches to coordinate ES trade-offs in order to better achieve win-win outcomes. (c) 2019 The Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据