Advertisement

Introduction to Part III: Trade-Offs and Synergies Among Ecosystem Services

  • Anna F. CordEmail author
  • Nina Schwarz
  • Ralf Seppelt
  • Martin Volk
  • Matthias Schröter
Chapter

Abstract

Efforts are increasing to integrate the sustainable provision of ecosystem services into land management decision-making. These efforts, however, are challenged by (1) the variety of methods to map and quantify ecosystem services, and (2) the scarcity of knowledge on how environmental policies and management decisions affect relationships among ecosystem services. A better understanding of relationships among ecosystem services is therefore much needed. This chapter introduces the part of the Atlas framework that focuses on relationships among ecosystem services. It contains a typology and common definitions of different types of relationships, provides a brief overview of the diversity of methods and approaches used, includes a summary of empirical evidence, and, finally, discusses implications for planning and management.

Keywords

Ecosystem service bundle Driver Interaction Management Multifunctionality 

References

  1. 1.
    Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. 2009;12(12):1394–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mouchet MA, Lamarque P, Martín-López B, Crouzat E, Gos P, Byczek C, et al. An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang. 2014;28:298–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Turkelboom F, Thoonen M, Jacobs S, García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, Berry P. Ecosystem services trade-offs and synergies (draft). In: Potsching-Young M, Jax K, eds. OpenNESS ecosystem services reference book. 2016;EC FP7 Grant Agreement no. 308428. http://www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book. Accessed 26 Oct 2017.
  4. 4.
    Rodríguez JP, Beard TD Jr, Bennett EM, Cumming GS, Cork SJ, Agard J, et al. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc. 2006;11(1):28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(11):5242–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cord AF, Bartkowski B, Beckmann M, Dittrich A, Hermans-Neumann K, Kaim A, et al. Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosyst Serv. 2017;28:264–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee H, Lautenbach S. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecol Indic. 2016;66:340–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turner KG, Odgaard MV, Bøcher PK, Dalgaard T, Svenning J-C. Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;125:89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Queiroz C, Meacham M, Richter K, Norström AV, Andersson E, Norberg J, et al. Mapping bundles of ecosystem services reveals distinct types of multifunctionality within a Swedish landscape. Ambio. 2015;44(1):89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lautenbach S, Volk M, Strauch M, Whittaker G, Seppelt R. Optimization-based trade-off analysis of biodiesel crop production for managing an agricultural catchment. Environ Model Softw. 2013;48:98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Castro AJ, Verburg PH, Martín-López B, Garcia-Llorente M, Cabellow J, Vaughn CC, et al. Ecosystem service trade-offs from supply to social demand: a landscape-scale spatial analysis. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;132:102–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daw TM, Coulthard S, Cheung WWL, Brown K, Abunge C, Galafassi D, et al. Evaluating taboo trade-offs in ecosystems services and human well-being. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(22):6949–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Howe C, Suich H, Vira B, Mace GM. Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob Environ Chang. 2014;28:263–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kline JD, Mazzotta MJ. Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services in the management of public lands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-865. 2012;Portland OR. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/40875. Accessed 26 Oct 2017.
  15. 15.
    Martinez-Harms MJ, Bryan BA, Balvanera P, Law EA, Rhodes JR, Possingham HP, et al. Making decisions for managing ecosystem services. Biol Conserv. 2015;184:229–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Palomo I, Martín-López B, López-Santiago C, Montes C. Participatory scenario planning for protected areas management under the ecosystem services framework: the Doñana social-ecological system in Southwestern Spain. Ecol Soc. 2011;16(1):23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    White C, Halpern BS, Kappel CV. Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(12):4696–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna F. Cord
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nina Schwarz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ralf Seppelt
    • 1
    • 3
  • Martin Volk
    • 1
  • Matthias Schröter
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Computational Landscape EcologyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute of Geoscience and GeographyMartin-Luther-University Halle-WittenbergHalleGermany
  4. 4.Department of Ecosystem ServicesHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZLeipzigGermany
  5. 5.German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations