Journal of Geographical Sciences

, Volume 26, Issue 7, pp 953–968 | Cite as

A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management



Ecosystem services are substantial elements for human society. The central challenge to meet the human needs from ecosystems while sustain the Earth’s life support systems makes it urgent to enhance efficient natural resource management for sustainable ecological and socioeconomic development. Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services can help to identify optimal decision points to balance the costs and benefits of the diverse human uses of ecosystems. In this sense, the aim of this paper is to provide key insights into ecosystem services trade-off analysis at different scales from a land use perspective, by comprehensively reviewing the trade-offs analysis tools and approaches that addressed in ecology, economics and other fields. The review will significantly contribute to future research on trade-off analysis to avoid inferior management options and offer a win-win solution based on comprehensive and efficient planning for interacting multiple ecosystem services.


ecosystem services trade-offs land-use management scale integrated modeling multi-criteria analysis efficiency frontier 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Badgley C, Moghtader J, Quintero E et al., 2007. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(2): 86–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balbi S, del Prado A, Gallejones P et al., 2015. Modeling trade-offs among ecosystem services in agricultural production systems. Environmental Modelling & Software, 72: 314–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bank W, 2008. Sustainable Land Management Sourcebook. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbier E B, 2007. Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Economic Policy, 22(49): 178–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barraquand F, Martinet V, 2011. Biological conservation in dynamic agricultural landscapes: Effectiveness of public policies and trade-offs with agricultural production. Ecological Economics, 70(5): 910–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bekele E G, Lant C L, Soman S et al., 2013. The evolution and empirical estimation of ecological-economic production possibilities frontiers. Ecological Economics, 90: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett E M, Balvanera P, 2007. The future of production systems in a globalized world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(4): 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohensky E L, Reyers B, Van Jaarsveld A S, 2006. Future ecosystem services in a Southern African river basin: A scenario planning approach to uncertainty. Conservation Biology, 20(4): 1051–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brauman K A, Daily G C, Duarte T K et al., 2007. The nature and value of ecosystem services: An overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32: 67–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Briggs S V, Taws N, 2003. Impacts of salinity on biodiversity: Clear understanding or muddy confusion? Australian Journal of Botany, 51(6): 609–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Briner S, Elkin C, Huber R et al., 2012. Assessing the impacts of economic and climate changes on land-use in mountain regions: A spatial dynamic modeling approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 149: 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Briner S, Huber R, Bebi P et al., 2013. Trade-offs between ecosystem services in a mountain region. Ecology and Society, 18(3): 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bryan B A, 2013. Incentives, land use, and ecosystem services: Synthesizing complex linkages. Environmental Science & Policy, 27: 124–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Butler J R, Wong G Y, Metcalfe D J et al., 2013. An analysis of trade-offs between multiple ecosystem services and stakeholders linked to land use and water quality management in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 180: 176–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carpenter S R, Mooney H A, Agard J et al., 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(5): 1305–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castro A J, Verburg P H, Martín-López B et al., 2014. Ecosystem service trade-offs from supply to social demand: A landscape-scale spatial analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 132: 102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cavender-Bares J, Polasky S, King E et al., 2015. A sustainability framework for assessing trade-offs in ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 20(1): 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chee Y E, 2004. An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biological Conservation, 120(4): 549–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cheung W W, Sumaila U R, 2008. Trade-offs between conservation and socio-economic objectives in managing a tropical marine ecosystem. Ecological Economics, 66(1): 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chisasa J, Makina D, 2013. Bank credit and agricultural output in South Africa: A Cobb-Douglas empirical analysis. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 12(4): 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chisholm R A, 2010. Trade-offs between ecosystem services: Water and carbon in a biodiversity hotspot. Ecological Economics, 69(10): 1973–1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Costanza R, d’ Arge R, De Groot R et al., 1998. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological Economics, 1(25): 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crossman N D, Bryan B A, 2009. Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multifunctionality. Ecological Economics, 68(3): 654–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crossman N D, Bryan B A, de Groot R S et al., 2013. Land science contributions to ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(5): 509–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Crossman N D, Bryan B A, Summers D M, 2011. Carbon payments and low-cost conservation. Conservation Biology, 25(4): 835–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cumming G, 2005. Ecology in global scenarios. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: 45.Google Scholar
  27. Daily G C, Alexander S, Ehrlich P R et al., 1997. Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Ecological Society of America Washington (DC).Google Scholar
  28. Daily G C, Polasky S, Goldstein J et al., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1): 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. De Groot R, Fisher B, Christie M et al., 2010a. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan.Google Scholar
  30. De Groot R S, Alkemade R, Braat L et al., 2010b. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3): 260–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Deng X Z, Li Z H, Huang J K et al., 2013. A revisit to the impacts of land use changes on the human wellbeing via altering the ecosystem provisioning services. Advances in Meteorology, 2013.Google Scholar
  32. Deng X Z, Zhao Y H, Wu F et al., 2011. Analysis of the trade-off between economic growth and the reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus emissions in the Poyang Lake Watershed, China. Ecological Modelling, 222(2): 330–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dymond J R, Ausseil A-G E, Ekanayake J C et al., 2012. Tradeoffs between soil, water, and carbon: A national scale analysis from New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management, 95(1): 124–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Elmqvist T, Tuvendal M, Krishnaswamy J et al., 2013. Managing trade-offs in ecosystem services. In: Kumar P, Thiaw I (eds.). Values, Payments and Institutions for Ecosystem Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 70–89.Google Scholar
  35. Falkenmark M, 2003. Freshwater as shared between society and ecosystems: From divided approaches to integrated challenges. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 358(1440): 2037–2049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Falloon P, Betts R, 2010. Climate impacts on European agriculture and water management in the context of adaptation and mitigation: The importance of an integrated approach. Science of the Total Environment, 408(23): 5667–5687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Farley J, 2012. Ecosystem services: The economics debate. Ecosystem Services, 1(1): 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Farrell M J, 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General): 253–290.Google Scholar
  39. Fontana V, Radtke A, Fedrigotti V B et al., 2013. Comparing land-use alternatives: Using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecological Economics, 93: 128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Garland T, 2014. Quick guide: Trade-offs. Current Biology, 24(2): R60–R61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Goldstein J H, Caldarone G, Duarte T K et al., 2012. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19): 7565–7570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Greiner R, Cacho O, 2001. On the efficient use of a catchment’s land and water resources: Dryland salinization in Australia. Ecological Economics, 38(3): 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Grosskopf S, Hayes K and Yaisawarng S, 1992. Measuring economies of diversification: A frontier approach. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(4): 453–459.Google Scholar
  44. Haase D, Schwarz N, Strohbach M et al., 2012. Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: An integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany. Ecology and Society, 17(3): 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Haines-Young R, Potschin M, Kienast F, 2012. Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: Mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecological Indicators, 21: 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holland R A, Eigenbrod F, Armsworth P R et al., 2011. The influence of temporal variation on relationships between ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(14): 3285–3294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Holling C S, 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1–23.Google Scholar
  48. Huang I B, Keisler J, Linkov I, 2011. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Science of the Total Environment, 409(19): 3578–3594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Huber R, Bugmann H, Buttler A et al., 2013. Sustainable land-use practices in European mountain regions under global change: An integrated research approach. Ecology and Society, 18(3): 37.Google Scholar
  50. Jackson B, Pagella T, Sinclair F et al., 2013. Polyscape: A GIS mapping framework providing efficient and spatially explicit landscape-scale valuation of multiple ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning, 112: 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jiang M K, Bullock J Mand Hooftman D A, 2013. Mapping ecosystem service and biodiversity changes over 70 years in a rural English county. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(4): 841–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. King E, Cavender-Bares J, Balvanera P et al., 2015. Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities. Ecology and Society, 20(3): 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kirchner M, Schmidt J, Kindermann G et al., 2015. Ecosystem services and economic development in Austrian agricultural landscapes: The impact of policy and climate change scenarios on trade-offs and synergies. Ecological Economics, 109: 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Laniak G F, Olchin G, Goodall J et al., 2013. Integrated environmental modeling: A vision and roadmap for the future. Environmental Modelling & Software, 39: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lester S E, Costello C, Halpern B S et al., 2013. Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 38: 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Li Z H, Deng X Z, Huang J K et al., 2013. Critical studies on integrating land-use induced effects on climate regulation services into impact assessment for human well-being. Advances in Meteorology, 1–14. doi: 10.1155/2013/831250.Google Scholar
  57. Lü Y, Fu B, Feng X et al., 2012. A policy-driven large scale ecological restoration: Quantifying ecosystem services changes in the Loess Plateau of China. PloS One, 7(2): e31782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. MA, 2005a). Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  59. MA, 2005b). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  60. MA, 2005c). Our Human Planet: Summary for Decision-makers. Island Press.Google Scholar
  61. Maes J, Paracchini M, Zulian G et al., 2012. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biological Conservation, 155: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Maron M, Cockfield G, 2008. Managing trade-offs in landscape restoration and revegetation projects. Ecological Applications, 18(8): 2041–2049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M et al., 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PloS One, 7(6): e38970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Maskell L C, Crowe A, Dunbar M J et al., 2013. Exploring the ecological constraints to multiple ecosystem service delivery and biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(3): 561–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mason N W, Ausseil A-G E, Dymond J R et al., 2012. Will use of non-biodiversity objectives to select areas for ecological restoration always compromise biodiversity gains? Biological Conservation, 155: 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mastrangelo M E, Laterra P, 2015. From biophysical to social-ecological trade-offs: Integrating biodiversity conservation and agricultural production in the Argentine Dry Chaco. Ecology and Society, 20(1): 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McShane T O, Hirsch P D, Trung T C et al., 2011. Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144(3): 966–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios: Findings of the Scenarios Working Group. Island Press.Google Scholar
  69. Medcalf K, Small N, Finch C et al., 2014). JNCC Report No: 514. Further Development of a Spatial Framework for Mapping Ecosystem Services.Google Scholar
  70. Mouchet M A, Lamarque P, Martín-López B et al., 2014. An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 28: 298–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Naidoo R, Ricketts T H, 2006. Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biology, 4(11): e360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J et al., 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1): 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nelson E, Polasky S, Lewis D J et al., 2008. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28): 9471–9476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nguyen T T, Verdoodt A, Van Y T et al., 2015. Design of a GIS and multi-criteria based land evaluation procedure for sustainable land-use planning at the regional level. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Paterson S, Bryan B A, 2012. Food-carbon trade-offs between agriculture and reforestation land uses under alternate market-based policies. Ecology and Society, 17(3): 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pattanayak S K, 2004. Valuing watershed services: Concepts and empirics from Southeast Asia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 104(1): 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Polasky S, Nelson E, Camm J et al., 2008. Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biological Conservation, 141(6): 1505–1524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Polasky S, Nelson E, Pennington D et al., 2011. The impact of land-use change on ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: A case study in the State of Minnesota. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(2): 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Power A G, 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554): 2959–2971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson G D, Bennett E, 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(11): 5242–5247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ring I, 2008. Biodiversity governance: Adjusting local costs and global benefits. In: Public and Private in Natural Resource Governance: A False Dichotomy? London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  82. Ring I, Hansjürgens B, Elmqvist T et al., 2010. Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: The TEEB initiative. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1): 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K et al., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263): 472–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rodríguez J, Beard T, Agard J et al., 2005. Interactions among ecosystem services. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (ed.). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios (Vol. II). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  85. Rodríguez J P, Beard T D, Bennett E M et al., 2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 11(1): 28.Google Scholar
  86. Ruhl J B, Kraft S, E, Lant C L, 2007. The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services. Cambridge Univ Press.Google Scholar
  87. Ryffel A N, Rid W, Grêt-Regamey A, 2014. Land use trade-offs for flood protection: A choice experiment with visualizations. Ecosystem Services, 10: 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sanon S, Hein T, Douven W et al., 2012. Quantifying ecosystem service trade-offs: The case of an urban floodplain in Vienna, Austria. Journal of Environmental Management, 111: 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Seppelt R, Lautenbach S, Volk M, 2013. Identifying trade-offs between ecosystem services, land use, and biodiversity: A plea for combining scenario analysis and optimization on different spatial scales. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(5): 458–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sheng W P, Ren S J, Yu G R et al., 2011. Patterns and driving factors of WUE and NUE in natural forest ecosystems along the North-South Transect of Eastern China. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 21(4): 651–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Silvestri S, Kershaw F, 2010. Framing the flow: Innovative approaches to understand, protect and value ecosystem services across linked habitats. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).Google Scholar
  92. Swallow B M, Sang J K, Nyabenge M et al., 2009. Tradeoffs, synergies and traps among ecosystem services in the Lake Victoria basin of East Africa. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(4): 504–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tallis H, Kareiva P, Marvier M et al., 2008. An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28): 9457–9464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tallis H, Ricketts T, Guerry A et al., 2011). InVEST 2.1 beta User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project. Stanford.Google Scholar
  95. Tansley A G, 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16(3): 284–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. TEEB, 2010). In: Kumar P (ed.). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  97. Tietenberg T, 1988. Environmental and Natural Resources. Economics.Google Scholar
  98. Tilman D, Cassman K G, Matson P A et al., 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898): 671–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. UKNEA, 2011. The United Kingdom National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.Google Scholar
  100. van den Belt M, Bowen T, Slee K et al., 2013. Flood protection: Highlighting an investment trap between built and natural capital. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 49(3): 681–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Van Huylenbroeck G, 1997. Multicriteria tools for the trade-off analysis in rural planning between economic and environmental objectives. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 83(2): 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Varian H R, Repcheck J, 2010. Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach. New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
  103. Vollmer D, Pribadi D O, Remondi F et al., 2015. Prioritizing ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing river basins: A spatial multi-criteria analytic approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 20: 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wang Z, Mao D, Li L et al., 2015. Quantifying changes in multiple ecosystem services during 1992–2012 in the Sanjiang Plain of China. Science of the Total Environment, 514: 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wendland K J, Honzák M, Portela R et al., 2010. Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: Opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar. Ecological Economics, 69(11): 2093–2107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Willemen L, Veldkamp A, Verburg P et al., 2012. A multi-scale modelling approach for analysing landscape service dynamics. Journal of Environmental Management, 100: 86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Yahdjian L, Sala O E, Havstad K M, 2015. Rangeland ecosystem services: Shifting focus from supply to reconciling supply and demand. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(1): 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Geographic Science and Natural Resources Research (IGSNRR), Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources ResearchCASBeijingChina
  2. 2.Center for Chinese Agricultural PolicyCASBeijingChina
  3. 3.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsThe University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations