Abstract
Considering both ecological and social dimensions in the assessment of ecosystem services (ESs) can facilitate acceptable and inclusive management strategies, especially in peri-urban areas characterized by intricate human–ecosystem interactions. A limited body of research, however, has mapped the plural values of ESs and their different types of trade-offs in such areas. This research aimed to execute an interdisciplinary analysis of the biophysical and social values of ESs in peri-urban Shanghai, China, through a social–ecological approach that integrates spatial biophysical assessment with participatory mapping. Trade-off analysis in both ES types and ES valuations were then conducted, and multicriteria decision-making was applied for conservation. Our results reveal that trade-off intensities were lower within the social values compared to the biophysical values. Within both value dimensions, relatively stronger trade-offs were found between food production and other ESs. Areas with both high biophysical and social values were infrequently observed across ESs. Based on the characteristics of diverse values, our study identified priority conservation areas and provided management implications. We argue that adopting the integrated social–ecological perspective in sustainable environmental management contributes to the realization of harmonious coexistence between people and nature in peri-urban areas.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arias-Arévalo, P., E. Gómez-Baggethun, B. Martín-López, and M. Pérez-Rincón. 2018. Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: A taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods. Environmental Values 27: 29–53. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327118X15144698637513.
Aryal, K., T. Maraseni, and A. Apan. 2022. How much do we know about trade-offs in ecosystem services? A systematic review of empirical research observations. Science of the Total Environment 806: 151229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151229.
Bagstad, K.J., J.M. Reed, D.J. Semmens, B.C. Sherrouse, and A. Troy. 2016. Linking biophysical models and public preferences for ecosystem service assessments: A case study for the Southern Rocky Mountains. Regional Environmental Change 16: 2005–2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0756-7.
Bradford, J.B., and A.W. D’Amato. 2012. Recognizing trade-offs in multi-objective land management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1890/110031.
Brown, G. 2013. The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: An empirical analysis. Ecosystem Services 5: 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.004.
Brown, G., and M. Kyttä. 2014. Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography 46: 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.004.
Bryan, B.A., C.M. Raymond, N.D. Crossman, and D. King. 2011. Comparing spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 25: 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01560.x.
Castro, A.J., P.H. Verburg, B. Martín-López, M. Garcia-Llorente, J. Cabello, C.C. Vaughn, and E. López. 2014. Ecosystem service trade-offs from supply to social demand: A landscape-scale spatial analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning 132: 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.009.
Chaves, Ó.M., J.C.S. Júnior, G. Buss, Z.M.B. Hirano, M.M.A. Jardim, E.L.S. Amaral, J.C. Godoy, A.R. Peruchi, et al. 2022. Wildlife is imperiled in peri-urban landscapes: Threats to arboreal mammals. Science of the Total Environment 821: 152883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152883.
Chen, S., H. Chen, R. Yang, and Y. Ye. 2023. Linking social-ecological management and ecosystem service bundles: Lessons from a peri-urban agriculture landscape. Land Use Policy 131: 106697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106697.
Chicago, L.Q., C. Echeverría, and C.J. Pizarro. 2022. Ecosystem services trade-offs in landscapes: trends, areas of greatest impact, and temporal evolution of the scientific field. Landscape Ecology 37: 2225–2239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01488-8.
Collas, L., R.E. Green, A. Ross, J.H. Wastell, and A. Balmford. 2017. Urban development, land sharing and land sparing: The importance of considering restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 54: 1865–1873. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12908.
Cord, A.F., B. Bartkowski, M. Beckmann, A. Dittrich, K. Hermans-Neumann, A. Kaim, N. Lienhoop, K. Locher-Krause, et al. 2017. Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosystem Services 28: 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.012.
Cortinovis, C., D. Geneletti, and K. Hedlund. 2021. Synthesizing multiple ecosystem service assessments for urban planning: A review of approaches, and recommendations. Landscape and Urban Planning 213: 104129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104129.
Costanza, R., R. de Groot, L. Braat, I. Kubiszewski, L. Fioramonti, P. Sutton, S. Farber, and M. Grasso. 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services 28: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008.
Crouzat, E., A. De Frutos, V. Grescho, S. Carver, A. Büermann, C. Carvalho-Santos, R. Kraemer, S. Mayor, et al. 2022. Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings. Ecosystem Services 53: 101395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101395.
Cusens, J., A.M.D. Barraclough, and I.E. Måren. 2022. Participatory mapping reveals biocultural and nature values in the shared landscape of a Nordic UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. People and Nature 4: 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10287.
Cusens, J., A.D. Barraclough, and I.E. Måren. 2023. Integration matters: Combining socio-cultural and biophysical methods for mapping ecosystem service bundles. Ambio 52: 1004–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01830-7.
Cusens, J., A.D. Barraclough, and I.E. Måren. 2024. Socio-cultural values and biophysical supply: How do afforestation and land abandonment impact multiple ecosystem services? Land Use Policy 136: 106967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106967.
De Vreese, R., M. Leys, C.M. Fontaine, and N. Dendoncker. 2016. Social mapping of perceived ecosystem services supply—The role of social landscape metrics and social hotspots for integrated ecosystem services assessment, landscape planning and management. Ecological Indicators 66: 517–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.048.
Diaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martin-Lopez, R.T. Watson, Z. Molnar, R. Hill, K. Chan, et al. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359: 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826.
Ding, T., J. Chen, L. Fang, J. Ji, and Z. Fang. 2023. Urban ecosystem services supply-demand assessment from the perspective of the water-energy-food nexus. Sustainable Cities and Society 90: 104401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104401.
Escobedo, F.J., M. Bottin, D. Cala, and D.L. Sandoval Montoya. 2020. Spatial literacy influences stakeholder’s recognition and mapping of peri-urban and urban ecosystem services. Urban Ecosystems 23: 1039–1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00962-y.
Fagerholm, N., M. Torralba, G. Moreno, M. Girardello, F. Herzog, S. Aviron, P. Burgess, J. Crous-Duran, et al. 2019. Cross-site analysis of perceived ecosystem service benefits in multifunctional landscapes. Global Environmental Change 56: 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.04.002.
Felipe-Lucia, M.R., F.A. Comín, and J. Escalera-Reyes. 2015. A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services. Ambio 44: 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0555-2.
Feng, Z., X. Xu, J. Zhou, and Y. Gao. 2016. Land sparing versus sharing framework from ecosystem service perspective. Progress in Geography 35: 1100–1108. https://doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2016.09.005 (In Chinese, English summary).
Filyushkina, A., F. Komossa, M.J. Metzger, and P.H. Verburg. 2022. Multifunctionality of a peri-urban landscape: Exploring the diversity of residents’ perceptions and preferences. Ecosystems and People 18: 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2131911.
Follmann, A., M. Willkomm, and P. Dannenberg. 2021. As the city grows, what do farmers do? A systematic review of urban and peri-urban agriculture under rapid urban growth across the Global South. Landscape and Urban Planning 215: 104186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104186.
Fontaine, C.M., N. Dendoncker, R. De Vreese, I. Jacquemin, A. Marek, A. Van Herzele, G. Devillet, D. Mortelmans, et al. 2014. Towards participatory integrated valuation and modelling of ecosystem services under land-use change. Journal of Land Use Science 9: 278–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2013.786150.
Garau, E., J. Pueyo-Ros, A. Jiménez-Aceituno, G. Peterson, A. Norström, A. Ribas Palom, and J. Vila-Subirós. 2023. Landscape features shape people’s perception of ecosystem service supply areas. Ecosystem Services 64: 101561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101561.
Garcia-Martin, M., N. Fagerholm, C. Bieling, D. Gounaridis, T. Kizos, A. Printsmann, M. Müller, J. Lieskovský, et al. 2017. Participatory mapping of landscape values in a Pan-European perspective. Landscape Ecology 32: 2133–2150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0531-x.
Gong, Y., Y. Yang, Z. Wang, G. Ye, J. Zeng, and W. Hu. 2023. Siting MPAs for multiple protecting purposes by co-consideration of ecological importance and anthropogenic impacts. Journal of Environmental Management 337: 117718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117718.
Grass, I., J. Loos, S. Baensch, P. Batáry, F. Librán Embid, A. Ficiciyan, F. Klaus, M. Riechers, et al. 2019. Land-sharing/-sparing connectivity landscapes for ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. People and Nature 1: 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.21.
Hansen, M.H., H. Li, and R. Svarverud. 2018. Ecological civilization: Interpreting the Chinese past, projecting the global future. Global Environmental Change 53: 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.014.
Harrison, P.A., R. Dunford, D.N. Barton, E. Kelemen, B. Martín-López, L. Norton, M. Termansen, H. Saarikoski, et al. 2018. Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach. Ecosystem Services 29: 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.016.
Herrero-Jáuregui, C., C. Arnaiz-Schmitz, M. Reyes, M. Telesnicki, I. Agramonte, M. Easdale, M. Schmitz, M. Aguiar, et al. 2018. What do we talk about when we talk about social-ecological systems? A literature review. Sustainability 10: 2950. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082950.
Hossu, C.A., I. Iojă, D.A. Onose, M.R. Niță, A. Popa, O. Talabă, and L. Inostroza. 2019. Ecosystem services appreciation of urban lakes in Romania. Synergies and trade-offs between multiple users. Ecosystem Services 37: 100937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100937.
Hutchings, P., S. Willcock, K. Lynch, D. Bundhoo, T. Brewer, S. Cooper, D. Keech, S. Mekala, et al. 2022. Understanding rural–urban transitions in the Global South through peri-urban turbulence. Nature Sustainability 5: 924–930. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00920-w.
IPBES. 2022. Summary for Policymakers of the Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/record/6522392.
Jacobs, S., B. Martín-López, D.N. Barton, R. Dunford, P.A. Harrison, E. Kelemen, H. Saarikoski, M. Termansen, et al. 2018. The means determine the end—Pursuing integrated valuation in practice. Ecosystem Services 29: 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011.
Karimi, A., H. Yazdandad, and N. Fagerholm. 2020. Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management. Ecosystem Services 45: 101188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101188.
Kronenberg, J., and E. Andersson. 2019. Integrating social values with other value dimensions: Parallel use vs. combination vs. full integration. Sustainability Science 14: 1283–1295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00688-7.
Lee, Y., J. Ahern, and C. Yeh. 2015. Ecosystem services in peri-urban landscapes: The effects of agricultural landscape change on ecosystem services in Taiwan’s western coastal plain. Landscape and Urban Planning 139: 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.023.
Li, J. 2020. Culture and tourism-led peri-urban transformation in China—The case of Shanghai. Cities 99: 102628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102628.
Lin, Y., W. Lin, H. Li, Y. Wang, C. Hsu, W. Lien, J. Anthony, and J.R. Petway. 2017. Integrating social values and ecosystem services in systematic conservation planning: A case study in Datuan Watershed. Sustainability 9: 718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050718.
Loos, J., F. Benra, M. Berbes-Blazquez, L.L. Bremer, K. Chan, B. Egoh, M. Felipe-Lucia, D. Geneletti, et al. 2023. An environmental justice perspective on ecosystem services. Ambio 52: 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01812-1.
Lourdes, K.T., P. Hamel, C.N. Gibbins, R. Sanusi, B. Azhar, and A.M. Lechner. 2022. Planning for green infrastructure using multiple urban ecosystem service models and multicriteria analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning 226: 104500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104500.
Lu, N., L. Liu, D. Yu, and B. Fu. 2021. Navigating trade-offs in the social-ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 48: 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.10.014.
Marshall, F., J. Dolley, R. Bisht, R. Priya, L. Waldman, P. Randhawa, J. Scharlemann, P. Amerasinghe, et al. 2024, Recognising peri-urban ecosystem services in urban development policy and planning: A framework for assessing agri-ecosystem services, poverty and livelihood dynamics. Landscape and Urban Planning 247: 105042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105042.
Martín-López, B., E. Gómez-Baggethun, M. García-Llorente, and C. Montes. 2014. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators 37: 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003.
Martín-López, B., I. Leister, P. Lorenzo Cruz, I. Palomo, A. Grêt-Regamey, P.A. Harrison, S. Lavorel, B. Locatelli, et al. 2019. Nature’s contributions to people in mountains: A review. PLoS ONE 14: e0217847. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217847.
McElwee, P., Á. Fernández Llamazares, Y. Aumeeruddy Thomas, D. Babai, P. Bates, K. Galvin, M. Guèze, J. Liu, et al. 2020. Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large-scale ecological assessments: Reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology 57: 1666–1676. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13705.
Meng, S., Q. Huang, L. Zhang, C. He, L. Inostroza, Y. Bai, and D. Yin. 2020. Matches and mismatches between the supply of and demand for cultural ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing watersheds: A case study in the Guanting Reservoir basin, China. Ecosystem Services 45: 101156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101156.
Meyfroidt, P., A. de Bremond, C.M. Ryan, E. Archer, R. Aspinall, A. Chhabra, G. Camara, E. Corbera, et al. 2022. Ten facts about land systems for sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119: e2109217118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington: Island Press.
Mortoja, M.G., T. Yigitcanlar, and S. Mayere. 2020. What is the most suitable methodological approach to demarcate peri-urban areas? A systematic review of the literature. Land Use Policy 95: 104601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104601.
Natural Capital Project. 2023. InVEST 3.13.0., Stanford University, University of Minnesota, Chinese Academy of Sciences, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Pan, J., Y. Ma, Y. Chen, S. Cai, and Y. Chen. 2022. Biodiversity assessment of Pudacuo National Park from the perspective of coupled social-ecological system. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment 38: 609–620. https://doi.org/10.19741/j.issn.1673-4831.2021.0492 (In Chinese, English summary).
Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, C.B. Anderson, R. Chaplin-Kramer, M. Christie, D. González-Jiménez, A. Martin, C.M. Raymond, et al. 2023. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620: 813–823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9.
Peng, J., L. Tian, Y. Liu, M. Zhao, Y. Hu, and J. Wu. 2017. Ecosystem services response to urbanization in metropolitan areas: Thresholds identification. Science of the Total Environment 607–608: 706–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.218.
PGQDSM [People's Government of Qingpu District of Shanghai Municipality]. 2020. Draft Master Plan and Land Use Master Plan of Qingpu District (2017–2035). https://www.shqp.gov.cn/prog/ghzwgk/ml/gh/20200429/655558.html. Accessed 11 October 2023.
Plieninger, T., S. Dijks, E. Oteros-Rozas, and C. Bieling. 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33: 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.1.
Plieninger, T., M. Torralba, T. Hartel, and N. Fagerholm. 2019. Perceived ecosystem services synergies, trade-offs, and bundles in European high nature value farming landscapes. Landscape Ecology 34: 1565–1581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00775-1.
Quintas-Soriano, C., D.M. Gibson, J.S. Brandt, M.D. Lopez-Rodriguez, J. Cabello, P.A. Aguilera, and A.J. Castro. 2021. An interdisciplinary assessment of private conservation areas in the Western United States. Ambio 50: 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01323-x.
Raymond, C.M., C.B. Anderson, S. Athayde, A. Vatn, A.M. Amin, P. Arias-Arévalo, M. Christie, M. Cantú-Fernández, et al. 2023a. An inclusive typology of values for navigating transformations towards a just and sustainable future. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64: 101301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101301.
Raymond, C.M., A.M. Lechner, M. Havu, J. Jalkanen, J. Lampinen, O.G. Antúnez, A.S. Olafsson, N. Gulsrud, et al. 2023b. Identifying where nature-based solutions can offer win-wins for carbon mitigation and biodiversity across knowledge systems. Npj Urban Sustainability 3: 27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-023-00103-2.
Ren, G., L. Liu, H. Li, G. Yin, and X. Zhao. 2021. Spatio-temporal pattern of multifunction tradeoffs and synergies of the rural landscape: Evidence from Qingpu District in Shanghai. Journal of Resources and Ecology 12: 225–240. https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.02.009.
Renard, K.G., G.R. Foster, G.A. Weesies, D.K. Mccool, and D.C. Yoder. 1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE).
Riechers, M., Á. Balázsi, L. Betz, T.S. Jiren, and J. Fischer. 2020. The erosion of relational values resulting from landscape simplification. Landscape Ecology 35: 2601–2612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01012-w.
Rodriguez, J.P., T.D. Beard, E.M. Bennett, G.S. Cumming, S.J. Cork, J. Agard, A.P. Dobson, and G.D. Peterson. 2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 11: 28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01667-110128.
Ruiz-Frau, A., T. Krause, and N. Marbà. 2018. The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management. Ecosystem Services 29: 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.013.
Sahana, M., J. Ravetz, P.P. Patel, H. Dadashpoor, and A. Follmann. 2023. Where is the peri-urban? A systematic review of peri-urban research and approaches for its identification and demarcation worldwide. Remote Sensing 15: 1316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15051316.
Scholte, S.S.K., A.J.A. van Teeffelen, and P.H. Verburg. 2015. Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics 114: 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007.
Schröter, M., D.N. Barton, R.P. Remme, and L. Hein. 2014. Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecological Indicators 36: 539–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.018.
Schutter, M.S., and C.C. Hicks. 2021. Speaking across boundaries to explore the potential for interdisciplinarity in ecosystem services knowledge production. Conservation Biology 35: 1198–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13659.
Schwartz, C., F. Klebl, F. Ungaro, S. Bellingrath-Kimura, and A. Piorr. 2022. Comparing participatory mapping and a spatial biophysical assessment of ecosystem service cold spots in agricultural landscapes. Ecological Indicators 145: 109700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109700.
Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., Z. Kalantari, G. Egidi, L. Gaburova, and L. Salvati. 2022. Urbanisation-driven land degradation and socioeconomic challenges in peri-urban areas: Insights from Southern Europe. Ambio 51: 1446–1458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01701-7.
Sherrouse, B.C., J.M. Clement, and D.J. Semmens. 2011. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Applied Geography 31: 748–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.08.002.
Sherrouse, B.C., D.J. Semmens, and J.M. Clement. 2014. An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecological Indicators 36: 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.008.
Shih, M. 2017. Rethinking displacement in peri-urban transformation in China. Environment and Planning a: Economy and Space 49: 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16670158.
SMPG [Shanghai Municipal People’s Government]. 2018. Shanghai Master Plan (2017–2035). https://www.shanghai.gov.cn/newshanghai/xxgkfj/2035001.pdf.
Spyra, M., D. La Rosa, I. Zasada, M. Sylla, and A. Shkaruba. 2020. Governance of ecosystem services trade-offs in peri-urban landscapes. Land Use Policy 95: 104617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104617.
Sun, X., J. Wu, H. Tang, and P. Yang. 2022. An urban hierarchy-based approach integrating ecosystem services into multiscale sustainable land use planning: The case of China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 178: 106097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106097.
Sylla, M., N. Hagemann, and S. Szewrański. 2020. Mapping trade-offs and synergies among peri-urban ecosystem services to address spatial policy. Environmental Science and Policy 112: 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.002.
Tian, L., B. Ge, and Y. Li. 2017. Impacts of state-led and bottom-up urbanization on land use change in the peri-urban areas of Shanghai: Planned growth or uncontrolled sprawl? Cities 60: 476–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.01.002.
Wang, L., Q. Hu, L. Liu, and C. Yuan. 2022. Land use multifunctions in metropolis fringe: Spatiotemporal identification and trade-off analysis. Land 12: 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12010087.
Wang, L., H. Zheng, S. Polasky, and Y. Long. 2021. Spatial priorities for biodiversity and ecosystem services considering theoretical decision-makers’ attitudes to risk. Environmental Research Communications 3: 115007. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ac34c6.
Wangai, P.W., B. Burkhard, and F. Müller. 2019. Quantifying and mapping land use changes and regulating ecosystem service potentials in a data-scarce peri-urban region in Kenya. Ecosystems and People 15: 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2018.1529708.
Whitehead, A.L., H. Kujala, C.D. Ives, A. Gordon, P.E. Lentini, B.A. Wintle, E. Nicholson, and C.M. Raymond. 2014. Integrating biological and social values when prioritizing places for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 28: 992–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12257.
Wu, Y., L. Shan, Z. Guo, and Y. Peng. 2017. Cultivated land protection policies in China facing 2030: Dynamic balance system versus basic farmland zoning. Habitat International 69: 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.09.002.
Xia, Z., Y. Wang, Q. Lu, Z. Shen, K. Liu, X. Wei, C. Yuan, Y. Gao, et al. 2024. Understanding residents’ perspectives on cultural ecosystem service supply, demand and subjective well-being in rapidly urbanizing landscapes: a case study of peri-urban Shanghai. Landscape Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01820-4.
Xia, Z., C. Yuan, Y. Gao, Z. Shen, K. Liu, Y. Huang, X. Wei, and L. Liu. 2023. Integrating perceptions of ecosystem services in adaptive management of country parks: A case study in peri-urban Shanghai. China. Ecosystem Services 60: 101522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101522.
Xu, H., G. Zhao, N. Fagerholm, J. Primdahl, and T. Plieninger. 2020. Participatory mapping of cultural ecosystem services for landscape corridor planning: A case study of the Silk Roads corridor in Zhangye. China. Journal of Environmental Management 264: 110458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110458.
Xue, B., B. Han, H. Li, X. Gou, H. Yang, H. Thomas, and S. Stückrad. 2023. Understanding ecological civilization in China: From political context to science. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01897-2.
Yager, R.R. 1988. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 18: 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.87068.
Yang, S., W. Zhao, Y. Liu, S. Wang, J. Wang, and R. Zhai. 2018. Influence of land use change on the ecosystem service trade-offs in the ecological restoration area: Dynamics and scenarios in the Yanhe watershed, China. Science of the Total Environment 644: 556–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.348.
Yang, S., W. Zhao, P. Pereira, and Y. Liu. 2019. Socio-cultural valuation of rural and urban perception on ecosystem services and human well-being in Yanhe watershed of China. Journal of Environmental Management 251: 109615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109615.
Zhang, J., and B. Fu. 2023. Eco-civilization: A complementary pathway rooted in theory and practice for global sustainable development. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01902-8.
Zhang, W., Y. Yu, X. Wu, P. Pereira, and M.E. Lucas Borja. 2020. Integrating preferences and social values for ecosystem services in local ecological management: A framework applied in Xiaojiang Basin Yunnan province, China. Land Use Policy 91: 104339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104339.
Zhang, L., C. Fang, C. Zhu, and Q. Gao. 2022a. Ecosystem service trade-offs and identification of eco-optimal regions in urban agglomerations in arid regions of China. Journal of Cleaner Production 373: 133823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133823.
Zhang, Y., Z. Zhao, B. Fu, R. Ma, Y. Yang, Y. Lü, and X. Wu. 2022b. Identifying ecological security patterns based on the supply, demand and sensitivity of ecosystem service: A case study in the Yellow River Basin, China. Journal of Environmental Management 315: 115158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115158.
Zhao, T., and J. Pan. 2022. Ecosystem service trade-offs and spatial non-stationary responses to influencing factors in the Loess hilly-gully region: Lanzhou City, China. Science of the Total Environment 846: 157422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157422.
Zhao, Y., W. You, X. Lin, and D. He. 2023. Assessing the supply and demand linkage of cultural ecosystem services in a typical county-level city with protected areas in China. Ecological Indicators 147: 109992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.109992.
Žlender, V. 2021. Characterisation of peri-urban landscape based on the views and attitudes of different actors. Land Use Policy 101: 105181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105181.
Acknowledgements
We thank Yi Wang and Jiawen Zhang for their help in the questionnaire and PPGIS survey. We also appreciate all the respondents participating in the survey. Thanks to the editors and reviewers for their insightful comments. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 42271105, 42071284, and 42001224) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (Grant No. 2021TC072).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Zheyi Xia contributed to conceptualization and writing—original draft preparation; Zheyi Xia, Zhen Shen, and Chengcheng Yuan helped in methodology; Zheyi Xia, Jiasi Huang, and Yuwen Huang helped in formal analysis and investigation; Kui Liu, Runmiao Zhu, and Liming Liu done writing—review and editing; Chengcheng Yuan and Liming Liu helped in funding acquisition; Liming Liu done supervision.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Xia, Z., Huang, J., Huang, Y. et al. A social–ecological approach for identifying and mapping ecosystem service trade-offs and conservation priorities in peri-urban areas. Ambio (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02031-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02031-6