4.7 Review

Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: A review

期刊

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
卷 25, 期 -, 页码 15-27

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.017

关键词

Ecosystem service supply; Ecosystem service demand; Supply-demand mismatch; Payment for ecosystem service

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41271549, 41671531]
  2. National Societal Science Foundation of China [15ZDB163]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2014KJJCB33]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As a result of the unsustainable way in which natural resources are consumed, the gaps between the supply and social demand of ecosystem services (ES) are gradually widening. In this regard, studies have increasingly assessed both ES supply and demand comprehensively. This current review covers recent case studies about the integrated assessment of ES supply and demand (IAESSD), which is defined as the application of ES supply and demand assessments in one case study. By combining some key words (e.g., ES, supply or capacity, demand or flow), 38 IAESSD case studies were selected. The indicator-me thod-mismatches in the case studies were then analyzed in detail. The results show that different indicators are applied to distinguish supply and demand. Mapping, participatory methods, and modeling are often used in IAESSD. ES supply-demand mismatches, which have a strong impact on human well-being by causing unsatisfied demand, are influenced by natural and anthropogenic factors. Because of the complex and interactive nature of ecological and economic systems, IAESSD faces challenges regarding the clarification of different ES components from supply to social demand and the provision of promising methods for the identification of ES mismatches. Thus, a framework for further IAESSD research is proposed. This framework highlights the importance of identifying multi-dimensional mismatches and matching ES supply and demand in practice. (C) 2017 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

4.7
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